lass 



PRESENTED BY 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY : 



EMBRACING A SERMON 



ON PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION, 



AND SEVER AX NUMBERS, 



FORMERLY PUBLISHED IN THE CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE AND 
JOURNAL. 



BY REV. WILBUR FISK, D. D. 



NEW. YORK, 

PUBLISHED BY B. WAUGH AND T. MASON, 

For the Methodist Episcopal Church at the Conference Office, 
•200 Mulberry -street. 



J. Collord, Printer. 
1835. 




" Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1S35, by B. 
Waugh and T. Mason, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of 
the Southern District of New-York." 



Jesses Ida a,ji<i Si 



CONTENTS. 



Advertisement Page 5 

Sermon on Predestination and Election ... 7 
No. I. Reply to the Christian Spectator ... 63 

II. A proposition to Calvinists 81 

III. Indefiniteness of Calvinism .... 89 

IV. Brief sketch of the past changes and 
present state of Calvinism in this coun- 
try 97 

V. Same subject continued .105 

VI. Predestination i ... 117 

VII. Predestination, continued 131 

VIII. Moral agency and accountability . . 149 

IX. Moral agency and accountability, con- 
tinued .163 

X. Moral agency as affected by the fall, and 

the subsequent provisions of grace . . . 183 

XI. Same subject continued 205 

XII. Objections to gracious ability answered 226 

XIII. Regeneration 252 

XIV. Regeneration, continued 271 

XV. Regeneration, continued . . . . . 291 



ADVERTISEMENT. 



The numbers following the sermon on predes- 
tination and election, were written at different 
times, and in some instances at quite distant in- 
tervals from each other. This will be received, 
it is hoped, as an apology for any want of connec- 
tion or uniformity of style, which the reader may 
notice. And if any farther apology be necessary, 
it may be found in the fact, that the entire con- 
tents of the volume as it is now presented, were 
written in the midst of other pressing duties. — 
And the same reason has prevented my giving 
the work such a thorough revision, as it should 
have had, before it was presented to the public, 
in the more set and imposing form of a book. 
Such a form was not originally thought of — and 
now that this is called for, the author is well 
aware that the public might expect a careful 
revision and correction of the whole. From 
this however, he must, of necessity, be excused. 
He has been able to do little more than correct 
the typographical errors. If the public have it, 
therefore, it must go " with all its imperfections 
on its head." Only let it be understood, that I 



6 



ADVERTISEMENT. 



do not send it out. The publishers say it is 
called for ; and I consent that it may go. The 
doctrines I believe, will stand the test of reason 
and Scripture, although some of the arguments 
by which they are defended may be found de- 
fective. 

It was my original design to have added one 
or two numbers on election ; but upon farther 
reflection, it appeared to me that enough had 
been said in the sermon on that point ; and that 
at any rate, if Calvinian predestination, and the 
Calvinistic views of moral agency and regene- 
ration, were found to be fallacious, the whole 
superstructure must fall of course. On these 
points therefore, we may safely rest the entire 
question between us and the Calvinists. 

W. FlSK. 

JVesleyan University, April 28, 1835. 



A DISCOURSE 



ON 

PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 



According as he hath chosen us in him hefore the 
foundation of the world, that we should be holy and 
without blame before him in love. 

Having predestinated us unto the adoption of chil- 
dren, by Jesus Christ, to himself, according to the 
good pleasure of his will, Ephesians i, 4, 5. 

In this passage, the kindred doctrines of pre- 
destination and election are brought into view. 
To discuss them, to notice some errors respect- 
ing them, and to exhibit what is believed to be 
the Scriptural and rational view of these doc- 
trines, is the proposed object of the present dis- 
course. In doing this* much that is new cannot 
be expected. The whole ground of this contro- 
very has been examined and re-examined ; and 
the various arguments, on both sides, have been 
urged and opposed, by the most able polemics in 
philosophy and theology. The most, therefore, 
that can now be expected, is to give a concise 
view of the subject, in a form and manner suited 
to the present state of the controversy, and to 
the circumstances of the present congregation. 

It is hoped, at least, that the subject may be 
investigated in the spirit of Christianity ; and 



8 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

tnat there will be no loss of brotherly and 
Christian candour, if there be no gain, on the 
side of truth. Yet, in a desire to give no of- 
fence, I must not suppress the truth, nor neglect 
to point out, as I am able, the absurdity of error, 
and its unprofitable influences on the minds of 
those who propagate or receive it. The truth 
vshould be spoken, but it should be spoken in love. 
Neither the subject, nor the age, nor the occa- 
sion, will admit of temporizing. With these 
view r s, we come to our subject, by examining, 

I. Predestination in general ; 

II. Predestination, in its particular relation to 
the doctrine of election. 

I. By predestination, we understand an effi- 
cient predetermination to bring about or accom- 
plish any future event. But as God alone has 
knowledge to comprehend futurity, and power to 
direct and control future events ; predestination, 
in a proper and strict sense, can only be used in 
reference to him. And with respect to God, 
predestination is that efficient determination 
which he has maintained from eternity, respect- 
ing the control, direction, and destiny of the 
laws, events, and creatures of the universe. — 
That God hath a predetermination of this kind, 
there can be no doubt ; and therefore, on this 
fact, there can be no dispute. But the ground 
of controversy is, the unlimited extent to which 
some have carried this idea of predestination. 
Calvin, on this subject, says, "Every action and 
motion of every creature is governed by the hid- 
den counsel of God, so that nothing can come to 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY, 



9 



pass, but was ordained by him." The Assem- 
bly's Catechism is similar : — " God did, from 
all eternity, unchangeably ordain whatever comes 
to pass." And Mr. Buck demies predestination 
to mean, " The decree of God, whereby he hath, 
for his own glory, foreordained whatever comes 
to pass." With these definitions, which, it is 
seen, are the same in substance, agree all the 
Calvinistic divines in Europe and America. — 
To this view of predestination, others, and we 
confess ourselves of that number, have objected. 
We believe that the character and acts of intelli- 
gent beings, so far at least as their moral 
accountability is concerned, are not definitely 
fixed, and efficiently produced, by the unaltera- 
ble purpose and efficient decree of God. Here 
therefore we are at issue. We believe, with 
the rigid predestinarians, that God hath fixed 
the laws of the physical and moral world, and 
that he hath a general plan, suited to all the 
various circumstances and contingencies of his 
government ; but that it is no part of this plan, 
efficiently to control and actuate the human will. 
So far, therefore, as these ultra-predestinarians 
go beyond us, they affirm what we deny ; and 
of course the burden of proof falls upon them. 
We shall first, then, hear and answer the argu- 
ments in defence of their system, and then bring 
up our arguments against it.* 

* Many objections have been made, by the review- 
ers, to my manner of stating the doctrine of predesti- 
nation. It is objected, that the great body of Cal- 
vinists believe, no more than the Arminians, that God 



10 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



The supporters of this system endeavour to 
establish their views by a threefold argument — 
the foreknowledge of God — the necessity of a 
plan — and Scripture testimony. 

1. The first argument is founded on fore- 
knowledge. It is sometimes contended that 
predestination and foreknowledge are the same. 
This, however, by the more judicious, is not now 
insisted on. For it is self-evident, that to know, 
and to decree, are distinct operations ; and to 
every one acquainted with the common definition 
of the terms, they must convey distinct and dif- 
ferent ideas. And if these are distinct operations 
in the human mind, they must be also in the 
Divine mind, unless it can be shown that these 
terms, when applied to God, have an entirely 
different meaning from that by which they are 
understood among men. And as this cannot be 
pretended, the more common and plausible argu- 
ment is, that the foreknowledge of God necessa- 
rily implies predestination. " For how," they 

"efficiently controls and actuates the human will." 
On a careful, and 1 hope, candid revision of the sub- 
ject, however, I cannot satisfy myself that the objec- 
tion is valid. I am quite sure God must control the 
will, or he cannot, as Calvinists teach, secure the pro- 
posed end, by the prescribed means. It is readily 
granted that Calvinists deny such a control as destroys 
the freedom of the will. But it is the object of the 
sermon and of the following controversy to show 
that Calvinistic predestination is, on any ground of 
consistency, utterly irreconcilable with mental free- 
dom. How far this has been done, of course, each 
will judge for himself. 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 11 

ask, " can an action that is really to eome to 
pass, be foreseen, if it be not determined ? God 
foreknew every thing from the beginning ; but 
this he could not have known, if he had not so 
determined it." " God," says Piscator, " fore- 
sees nothing but what he has decreed, and his 
decree precedes his knowledge." And Calvin 
says, " God therefore foreknows all things that 
will come to pass, because he has decreed they 
shall come to pass." But to this idea there are 
insuperable objections. Prescience is an essen- 
tial attribute of the Divine nature. But a deter- 
mination to do this or that, is not essential to the 
Divine nature. For aught we can see, God 
might determine to make a particular planet or 
not to make it, and in either case the perfection 
of his nature is not tiffected. But to know, is so 
essential to him, that the moment he ceases to 
know all that is, or will be, or might be. under 
any possible contingency, he ceases to be God. 
Is it not absurd, then, to say the least, to make 
an essential attribute of Deity depend upon the 
exercise of his attributes V — the Divine prescience 
depend upon his decrees and determinations ? It 
would seem, by this argument, that, if not in the 
order of time, at least, in the order of thought, 
and in the order of cause and effect, the exer- 
cise of an attribute preceded the attribute itself; 
and, in short, the attribute must be exercised, as 
a cause, to bring it into existence ! To this 
monstrous conclusion we are led by following 
out this argument. And connected with it is 
another, equally monstrous and absurd. If God 



12 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



must predetermine events in order to know 
them, then, as the cause is in no case dependent 
on the effect, the decrees of God must be passed 
and his plan contrived, independently of his 
knowledge, which only had an existence as the 
effect of these decrees. What must be the cha- 
racter of that plan, and of those decrees, which 
were formed and matured without knowledge, 
we will not stop to examine, for the idea borders 
too closely upon the ludicrous to be dwelt upon 
in a serious discourse. And yet I cannot see 
how this conclusion can be avoided, reasoning 
from such premises. It seems to us, therefore, 
altogether more consistent to consider that, in 
the order of cause and effect, the exercise of the 
Divine attributes is consequent upon their exist- 
ence ; and that the plan of the Almighty is the 
result of his infinite knowledge ; and that the 
decrees of his throne flow forth from the eternal 
fountain of his wisdom. This idea, moreover, 
accords with the Scriptures : — " For whom he 
did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be 
conformed to the image of his Son." " Elect 
according to the foreknowledge of God the Fa- 
ther." In these passages predestination and the 
decree of election are most clearly founded on 
foreknowledge. This, therefore, must settle the 
question : God foreknows in order to predesti- 
nate ; but he does not predestinate in order to 
foreknow.* 

* It seems, to the author of the sermon, but little 
better than trifling, to object, as some have, to this 
argument on foreknowledge, that "God must prede- 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



13 



But foreknowledge is pressed into this argu- 
ment in another form. " The foreknowledge 
of God," it is said, " is tantamount to a decree ; 
because, inasmuch as God cannot be in a mis- 
take, whatever he foreknows must take place — 
his knowledge makes it certain." This is in- 
deed shifting the argument ; for if God's know- 
ledge makes an event certain, of course it is not 
his predetermination. But, according to this 
notion, every thing contained in the idea of pre- 
destination is implied in foreknowledge, which is 
only throwing the subject back on the ground 
first glanced at, that knowledge and decree are 
both one, which is obviously absurd. Beside, 
such an idea would make the scriptures that 
represent God's foreknowledge as distinct from 
his decree and antecedent to it, worse than 
unmeaning : " Whom he did foreknow, them 
he did predestinate," would mean, " whom he 
did predestinate, them he did predestinate" — and, 
" Elect according to the foreknowledge of God," 

termine his works before lie could certainly know 
what would take place ; and hence, in the order of 
cause and effect, he must decree in order to know.'* 
It is readily conceded, that, in the order of nature, the 
Divine Being could not foreknow that a world would 
certainly exist, until he had determined to create it. 
But was there no prescience back of this ? Did he 
determine to create a universe, independent of a view 
of all the bearings in the case ? If so, he created at 
random and in ignorance. If not, then a view of all 
the results preceded his determination to create ; and 
thus we are led irresistibly to the doctrine of the ser- 
mon, that " God foreknows in order to predestinated 



14 



CALVES T ISTIC CGXTROVERSY. 



would only mean, « that the decree of election 
was according to the decree of election !" the 
absurdity of which is too apparent to need com- 
ment. And it may be urged, farther, in reply 
to this argument, that knowledge or foreknow- 
ledge cannot, in the nature of things, have the 
least possible influence in making an event cer- 
tain. It is not at all difficult to conceive how 
the certainty of an event can beget knowledge ; 
but if any one thinks that knowledge is the cause 
of certainty, let him show it-— to me such a con- 
nection is inconceivable. Whatever God fore- 
knows or foresees, will undoubtedly come to 
pass. But the simple question is, Does the 
event take place because it is foreknown, or is it 
foreknown because it will take place 1 Or, in 
other words, Does God know an event to be 
certain because it is certain, or does his knowing 
it to be certain make it certain? The question 
thus stated, at once suggests the true answer ; 
for he would be considered a fool or a madman 
who should seriously assert that a knowledge of 
a certainty produced that certainty. According 
to that, a certainty must exist in order to be 
foreknown ; and it must be foreknown in order 
to exist ! From all which it appears that fore- 
knowledge can have no influence in making a 
future event certain. Since, therefore, fore- 
knowledge is not predestination ; and does not, 
according to Scripture or reason, follow predes- 
tination as a consequence, and has no possible 
influence in making an event certain, no proof 
can be drawn from the Divine prescience in 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 15 



favour of the doctrine that God hath foreor- 
dained whatsoever comes to pass. 

2. But predestination is argued from the neces- 
sity of a Divine plan. " It cannot be conceived/' 
it is said, " that God would leave things at ran- 
dom, and have no plan. But no alteration of his 
plan can take place upon condition that his crea- 
tures act in this or that way." But this ^argu- 
ment is easily answered, at least for the present. 
For it assumes what ought to be proved ; and what 
has not, to my knowledge, ever been proved, viz. 
that to deny Calvinian predestination, is to 
deny that God has a perfect plan. We acknow- 
ledge and maintain that God has a plan, one part 
of which is, to govern his responsible subjects, 
without controlling their will, by a fixed decree 
— to punish the incorrigible, and save those who 
repent and believe. Does such a plan imply 
the necessity of a change, " on condition that his 
creatures act in this or that way 1" If, indeed, 
it was necessary for God to decree an event, in 
order to foreknow it, this inference might be just. 
But as this is seen to be false, it follows that a 
perfect God, whose eye surveys immensity and 
eternity at a glance, and who necessarily knows 
all possibilities and contingencies ; all that is, or 
will be, can perfectly arrange his plan, and pre- 
clude the possibility of a disappointment, although 
he does not, by a decree of predestination, fix 
all the volitions and acts of his subjects. Even 
in human governments, where the rulers can 
have no knowledge of the individuals who will 
transgress, or of the nature and extent of the 



16 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

transgressions, the principles and plan of gov- 
ernment undergo no change to accommodate 
themselves to the contingent acts of the subjects. 
How absurd, then, to suppose that the all-wise 
Ruler of the universe will be subject to disap- 
pointment, unless he predestinate the transgres- 
sions of sinners, and the obedience of his saints ! 
The truth is, in my view, this idea detracts from 
the wisdom of God ; for the perfection of his 
plan, as they maintain it, is predicated on the 
imperfection of his attributes. But our view of 
the Divine plan accords well with our idea of his 
infinite nature. Over the universe, and through 
eternity, he throws his all-pervading knowledge 
— as he is in every point of wide immensity, so 
he is in every moment of long eternity — and can 
such a God be disappointed 1 

3. " But," say the advocates of this system, 
" supposing there are difficulties in this subject, 
the Scriptures abound with passages which at 
once prove the doctrine." If this is true, then 
indeed we must submit. But the question is, 
where are these passages ? After such a strong 
assertion, it would probably appear surprising to 
one unacquainted with this subject, to learn that 
there is not a single passage which teaches 
directly that God hath foreordained whatsoever 
comes to pass. Yet this is the fact. If this 
doctrine is taught in Scripture, it is in an indirect 
manner. Nor will it follow, because God hath 
predestinated some things, that he hath, there- 
fore, decreed all things. All those passages 
then which have been so frequently quoted as 



CALVINXSTIC CONTROVERSY. 17 

proof of this doctrine, which only go to prove, 
that God hath predetermined certain events, are 
not proof in point. Where are the passages 
that say he hath decreed all things ? We know 
of many which say of certain events that have 
come to pass, that God did not command them, 
nor will them ; so that the abundant Scripture 
proof seems altogether on the other side of the 
question. It is argued, however, that certain 
acts of moral agents, even those acts for which 
they are held responsible, are, according to the 
Scriptures, the results of God's predetermination, 
and therefore it is reasonable to infer that all 
are. This general conclusion, however, is not 
contained in the premises ; nevertheless, if the 
premises are true, if it can be proved from 
Scripture that God holds his creatures respon- 
sible for the results of his own decrees, such 
Scripture proofs would be strong arguments to 
ward of? the objections that are brought against 
this system. For if it is consistent with a 
righteous God to make a moral agent respon- 
sible for one event which was the result of a 
Divine decree, upon the same principle, perhaps, 
he might make him responsible for all, though 
all were decreed. Let us then look at those 
scriptures, "As for you," says Joseph to his 
brethren, speaking of their injustice to him, 
" ye thought evil against me, but God meant it 
for good." Now without stopping here to 
inquire whether Joseph was inspired to utter 
this sentiment, we are ready to acknowledge, 
that there are a number of similar scriptures 
2 



28 CALvraisnc controversy. 

which teach that, in the results of the wicked 
acts of wicked men, God had a design and a 
controlling influence, and thereby made them 
subservient to his own purposes. He hath 
wisdom and power 66 to make the wrath of man 
praise him, and to restrain the remainder of 
wrath. " But does he therefore decree the 
wrath itself? And is this wrath necessary to 
the accomplishment of his purposes? As well 
might it be said, that because a government, in 
quelling a rebellion, replenished its exchequer 
from the confiscated estates of the rebels, 
therefore that government decreed the rebellion, 
and was dependent upon it for the prosperity of 
the nation. Let it be distinctly understood then, 
that to overrule and control the results of an act 
is altogether different from making the act itself 
the result of an overruling and controlling power. 

Again it is said, " The Lord hath made all 
things for himself, yea, even the wicked for the 
day of evil." That the Lord hath made all 
things for his own glory, is a proposition easily 
understood, and doubted, I trust, by none ; and 
this is evidently the meaning of the former 
member of this passage. The latter clause, if 
it helps the cause for which it is quoted at all, 
must mean, that the Lord has predestinated men 
to be wicked, that he might make them miserable. 
But it is not necessary to make the text speak 
this shocking sentiment. We should do the 
text no violence to explain it thus — The Lord 
hath destined the wicked for the day of evil, 
and this shall be for his glory. 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



19 



But there is another class of passages like 
the following : — " He doeth according to his will 
in the army of heaven, and among the inhabi- 
tants of the earth." " He worketh all things 
after the counsel of his will." "I will do all 
my pleasure." But these passages establish 
nothing, in opposition to our views, unless it 
should first be proved, by other passages, or in 
some other way, that it is God's will and pleasure 
to work all things, even wickedness, in the 
wicked. These scriptures prove that all God's 
works are in accordance with his own will and 
pleasure ; and that he will accomplish them in 
spite of the opposition of sinners. If it pleases 
him to form his moral government, so as to leave 
the responsible acts of his subjects unneces- 
sitated by his decree, this he will do, for "he will 
do all his pleasure." 

But there is still another class of texts, which 
are supposed to favour the doctrine we are 
opposing, more than any others, viz. those 
passages which seem to represent God as 
bringing about and procuring the wickedness 
of the wicked. Like the following : — " And I 
will harden Pharaoh's heart, that he should not 
let the people go." " Now therefore the Lord 
hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these 
thy prophets." " He hath blinded their eyes 
and hardened their hearts." * Him, being 
delivered by the determinate counsel and fore- 
knowledge of God, ye have taken, and by 
wicked hands ye have crucified and slain." 
On these and similar passages it may be re- 



20 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



marked, that God blinds men and hardens their 
hearts judicially, as a just punishment for their 
abuse of their agency. And for this act of his, 
in blinding and hardening them, he does not 
make them responsible. But he holds them 
responsible for that degree of wickedness which 
made it just and necessary to give them over to 
this hardness of heart and blindness of mind. 
And since there are wicked men and lying 
spirits, they become fit instruments in deceiving 
and tormenting each other ; and therefore God 
gives them power and liberty to go abroad, 
" deceiving and being deceived." But how does 
this prove that God hath decreed sin ? The idea 
that God hath made sin and wicked spirits the 
instruments of hardening and tormenting the 
incorrigible sinner, and finally of shutting the 
door of hope against him, has no kind of 
affinity to the idea, that he decreed the sin 
which occasioned this hardness, or ordained the 
wickedness of this lying spirit. 

As to the^ passage from the Acts, none of us 
deny but that Jesus Christ was delivered up to 
suffer and die, by the determinate counsel and 
foreknowledge of God ; but it is most emphati- 
cally denied, that this or any other scripture 
proves, that the taking and slaying of Jesus 
Christ by wicked hands, was the result of the 
determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God. 
If any think otherwise, let them prove it. 

Having stated and, as our time would permit, 
examined the arguments in favour of the senti- 
ment we are opposing, we are prepared to urge 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 21 



against this doctrine, not only that its arguments 
are unsound and insufficient, but also that the 
system itself is liable to the most serious and 
formidable objections. 

1. This doctrine of predestination makes 
God the author of sin. Some acknowledge 
this, and expressly assert, that God is the 
" efficient cause" of sin. Others affirm it in 
fact, while they deny it in word. Take for 
instance the words of Calvin. " I will not 
scruple to own," he says, " that the will of God 
lays a necessity on all things, and that every 
thing he wills, necessarily comes to pass." 
In accordance with this, Piscator, Dr. Twiss, 
Peter Martyr and others tell us, that " God 
procures adultery, cursings, and lyings" — " God 
is the author of that act, which is evil" — 
" God, by his working on the hearts of the 
wicked, binds them and stirs them to do evil." 
They deny, however, that God is the author of 
sin, because they say, " God necessitates them 
to the act, and not to the depravity of sin :" or, 
that " God does not sin when he makes men 
sin, because he is under no law, and therefore 
cannot sin." But these are miserable shifts. 
Has not the deformity of sin come to pass ? 
Then God has decreed this deformity. To deny 
this, is to give up the doctrine. But to ac- 
knowledge it, is to own that God is as much the 
author of the deformity, as he is of the act. 
Again, God doubtless decreed that sin should be 
sin, and not holiness ; and it came to pass as 
sin, because it was so decreed. Is he not then 



22 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

the direct procuring cause ? A thousand turns 
of this kind, therefore, are nothing but evasions. 
The fiat of God brought forth sin as certainly 
as it made the world. 

We are often told, when we quote Calvin and 
his contemporaries, that these are old authors ; 
that modern Calvinists do not hold thus, and 
that they ought not to be accountable for these 
writers. But the fact is, we make them ac- 
countable only for the logical consequences of 
their own doctrine. The whole system turns 
on this hinge, " God foreordains whatsoever 
comes to pass." For he that, by his will and 
decree, produces and causes sin, that makes sin 
a necessary part of his plan, and is the author 
of the very elements and materials of his own 
plan, must be the proper and sole cause of sin, 
or we have yet to learn the definition of com- 
mon words, and the meaning of plain propositions. 
The distinction therefore, of ancient and modern, 
of rigid and moderate Calvinists, is more in 
word, than in reality. And it would add much 
to the consistency of this system, if all its 
advocates would acknowledge, what is evidently 
deducible from the premises, that God is the 
efficient cause of sin. 

2. This doctrine of predestination destroys 
the free agency, and of course the accountability 
of man. That it destroys free will was seen 
and acknowledged by many predestinarians of 
the old school. And the opposers of Mr. 
Wesley and Mr. Fletcher violently assailed 
them on this subject. Mr. Southey informs us, 



CALVINISTIC COOTliOVERSY. 23 

in his Life of Wesley, that the Calvinists called 
this doctrine of free will, " a cursed doctrine" — 
" the most God-dishonouring and soul- destroying 
doctrine of the day" — "one of the prominent 
features of the beast" — " the enemy of God" 
— " the offspring of the wicked one" — " the 
insolent brat of hell." Others, and the greater 
part of the Calvinists of the present day, 
endeavour to reconcile the ideas of necessity 
and f?*ee agency. Man, they say, sins volun- 
tarily, because he chooses or wills to sin ; 
therefore he is a free agent. Hence they exhort 
sinners to repent, and tell them they can repent 
if they will. By which they mean, the only 
impossibility of their repenting, is in their will — 
their cannot is their will not. This has led 
many to think that there is no difference, 
between their preachers and the Arminians. 
But let us look at this subject a little, and see 
if there is not some sophistry concealed in this 
dexterous coil of words. God, according to 
this doctrine, secures the end as well as the 
means, by his decree of predestination. And 
therefore, as Calvin says, "every action and 
motion of every creature is governed by the 
hidden counsel of God." The will, therefore, 
in all its operations, is governed and irresistibly 
controlled by some secret impulse, some fixed 
and all-controlling arrangement. It is alto- 
gether futile, then, to talk about free agency 
under such a constitution ; the very spring of 
motion to the whole intellectual machinery is 
under the influence of a secret, invincible 



24 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY* 



power. And it must move as that power directs, 
for it is the hand of Omnipotence that urges it 
on. He can act as he wills, it is true, but the 
whole responsibility consists in the volition, and 
this is the result of God's propelling power. 
He wills as he is made to will — he chooses as 
he must choose, for the immutable decree of 
Jehovah is upon him. And can a man, upon 
the known and universally acknowledged prin- 
ciples of responsibility, be accountable for such 
a volition ? It is argued, I know, that man is 
responsible, because he feels that he acts freely, 
and that he might have done otherwise. To 
this I reply, that this is a good argument, on our 
principles, to prove that men are free — but on 
the Calvinistic ground, it only proves that God 
hath deceived us. He has made us feel that 
we might do otherwise, but he knows we cannot 
— he has determined we shall not. So that, in 
fact, this argument makes the system more 
objectionable. While it does not change the 
fact in the case, it attributes deception to the 
Almighty. It is logically true, therefore, from 
this di ctrine, that man is not a free agent, and 
therefore not responsible. A moral agent, to be 
free, must be possessed of a self-determining 
principle. Make the will any thing short of 
this, and you put all the volitions, and of course 
the whole moral man, under foreign and irre- 
sistible influences. 

3. Another strong objection to the doctrine 
we oppose, is, it arrays God's secret decrees 
against his revealed word. God commands men 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 25 

not to sin, and yet ordains that they shall sin. 
In his word, he sets before them, in striking re- 
lief, motives of fear and of hope, for the express 
purpose, as he informs us, " that they sin not 
but by his predestination and secret counsel, he 
irresistibly impels them in an opposite course, 
for the express purpose, as this doctrine informs 
us, to secure their transgression. His rule of 
action is in direct opposition to our rule of 
duty. And yet he is the author of both ! Is 
God at war with himself, or is he sporting and 
trifling with his creatures ? Or is it not more 
probable than either, that the premises are false ? 
When or where has God ever taught us, that 
he has two opposing wills ? A character so 
suspicious, to say the least of it, ought not, 
without the most unequivocal evidence, to be 
attributed to the adorable Jehovah. In his 
word, we are taught, that he is " of one mind" — 
that his " ways are equal ;" and who can doubt 
it ? We are told, it is true, to relieve the diffi- 
culty, that this seeming contradiction is one of 
the mysteries of God's incomprehensible nature. 
But it is not a seeming contradiction, it is a real 
one ; not an insolvable mystery, but a palpable 
absurdity. God prohibits the sinful act — God 
ordains and procures the sinful act— God vnlls 
the salvation of the reprobate, whom he has from 
all eternity irreversibly ordained to eternal death ! 
When I can embrace such opposite propositions 
by calling them mysteries, I can believe that two 
and two are more than four, that all the parts 
are less than the whole, and that a thing may 



26 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



be made to exist and not exist at the same time ; 
and explain them by a reference to the mysterv 
of God's incomprehensible nature. 

4. In close connection with the foregoing ob- 
jection, it may be added, that this system mars, 
if it does not destroy, the moral attributes of 
God. If he holds men responsible for what is 
unavoidable — if he makes laws and then impels 
men to break them, and finally punishes them for 
their transgressions — if he mourns over the 
evils of the world, and expostulates with sin- 
ners, saying, " How can I give thee up — my 
heart is melted within me, my repentings are 
kindled together," — " O Jerusalem ! Jerusalem ! 
how oft would I have gathered you, and ye 
would not," — and still he himself " impels the 
will of men," to all this wickedness — if I say 
God does all this, where is his veracity ? Where 
is his mercy? Where is his justice? What 
more could be said of the most merciless tyrant ? 
What, of the most arrant hypocrite ? What, of 
Satan himself? What does this doctrine make 
of our heavenly Father? I shudder to follow it 
out into its legitimate bearings. It seems to me, 
a belief of it is enough to drive one to infidelity, 
to madness, and to death. If the supporters of 
this system must adhere to it, I rejoice that they 
can close their eyes against its logical conse- 
quences, otherwise it would make them wretched 
in the extreme, or drive them into other danger- 
ous theoretical and practical errors. Indeed, 
in many instances it has done this — which leads 
to another objection to this doctrine. 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 27 

5. It puts a plea into the mouth of sinners to 
justify themselves in their sins, and leads to Uni- 
versalism and infidelity. They reason thus : — 
Whatever God decrees is according to his will, 
and therefore right. And God will not punish 
his creatures for doing right. Whatever God 
decrees is unavoidable, and God will not punish 
his creatures for what is unavoidable. But 
" every action and motion of every creature is 
goyerned by the hidden counsel of God." There- 
fore God will not punish any of his creatures for 
any of their acts. Now, who can point out any 
fallacy in this reasoning ? If therefore predes- 
tination be true, Universalism is true, according 
to the universally acknowledged principles of 
justice. And it is a notorious fact, that modern 
Universalism, which is prevailing so generally 
through the country, rests for its chief support 
on the doctrine of predestination. Others having 
seen, as they thought, that the Scriptures would 
not support the doctrine of Universalism, and 
that matter of fact seemed to contradict the 
above reasoning, inasmuch as men are made to 
suffer, even in this life, for their sins, have leaped 
over all Scriptural bounds into infidelity and phi- 
losophical necessity. I have personally known 
numbers who have been driven, by the doctrine 
we object to, into open infidelity. And it is well 
known, that the doctrine of fate, which is closely 
allied to Calvinian predestination, is the element 
in which infidelity " lives and moves and has its 
being." And can this be the doctrine of the 
Bible ? How much is it to be regretted, that 



28 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

our worthy pilgrim fathers should have sowed 
this Geneva seed in our happy country ! The 
evils done to the Church are incalculable. 

These, candid hearers, are some of the ob- 
jections we have to this doctrine — objections so 
serious, and, as we think, so obvious, that you 
may well ask, What has induced good men to 
advocate it so long ? It is, doubtless, because 
it stands connected intimately with the doctrine 
of unconditional election, and what have been 
called by Calvinists " the doctrines of grace." 
But for unconditional election, predestination 
would not be desired, even by those who now 
hold to it ; and but for predestination, uncondi- 
tional election could not be maintained. Hence 
these have very properly been called "twin 
doctrines," and must stand or fall together. Let 
us pass then to the next proposition. 

II. We come to examine predestination in its 
particular relation to election. 

Several kinds of election are spoken of in the 
Scriptures. There is an election of individuals, 
to perform certain duties appointed by God: — 
thus Christ was God's elect, for the redemption 
of the world ; and Cyrus was elected by him to 
rebuild the temple. There is an election of 
whole communities and nations to the enjoyment 
of certain peculiar privileges, political and eccle- 
siastical, relating of course to this life : — thus 
Jacob and his descendants were God's chosen 
people, to the enjoyment of religious and na- 
tional privileges, from which Esau and his 
descendants, together with the whole Gentile 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 29 



world, were excluded ; and thus, too, subse- 
quently, the middle wall of partition, made by 
the former decree of election between Jew and 
Gentile, being broken down, the Gentiles became 
equal sharers with the Jews in the privileges of 
the new covenant, called the " election of 
grace." This election is unconditional, and is 
believed to be the one spoken of in our text, 
and many other passages of Scripture. Of 
these, however, I shall speak more particularly 
in another place. 

There is a third election — an election unto 
eternal life, and this is the one which has given 
rise to the great controversy in the Church. — 
Those who contend for predestination, as ob- 
jected to by us, maintain that, 61 By the decree 
of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some 
• men and angels are predestinated unto everlast- 
ing life, and others foreordained to everlasting 
death. Those of mankind that are predestinated 
unto life, God, before the foundation of the 
world, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting 
glory, without any foresight of faith or good 
works " Others, and this also is our doctrine, 
hold that " God did decree from the beginning, 
to elect, or choose in Christ, all that should be- 
lieve unto salvation, and this decree proceeds 
from his own goodness, and is not built on any 
goodness of the creature ; and that God did from 
the beginning decree to reprobate all who should 
finally and obstinately continue in unbelief." 
Thus it is seen, from the statement of the two 
doctrines, that ours is an election of character, 



30 



CALVINISTIC controversy. 



and so far as it relates to individuals, it relates 
to them only as they are foreseen to possess 
that character ; whereas the other relates directly 
to individuals, without any reference to charac- 
ter. It is an absolute act of sovereignty — God 
elects them for no other reason or condition than 
because he chooses. He makes no account of 
man's agency or responsibility in this decree of 
election, but it precedes and is entirely indepen- 
dent of any knowledge of the character of the 
elect. Our views of election, on the contrary, 
make it conditionally dependent on the respon- 
sible agency of man. In the one case, the sin- 
ner is made to receive Christ, because he is 
elected ; and in the other, he is elected, because 
he receives Christ. From this difference, too, 
proceed other differences. The Calvinistic 
election, to be consistent with itself, requires 
that, as the end is arbitrarily fixed, so the means 
must be also — hence the doctrines of irresistible 
grace, effectual calling, and infallible perse- 
verance. Calvinian election, therefore, stands 
intimately allied to Calvinian predestination ; and 
the whole forms a chain of doctrines differing 
materially from ours. And here we acknow- 
ledge we have a position to prove as well as our 
opponents. We assert that election to eternal 
life is conditional ; they, that it is unconditional. 
We will first attempt to prove our position — 
then state and answer the arguments in favour 
of unconditional election — and finally, urge some 
objections against unconditional election and 
reprobation. 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



SI 



1. Our first argument in favour of conditional 
election to eternal life, is drawn from the posi- 
tion already established, that the decrees of God 
are predicated on his foreknowledge. And espe- 
cially, that the decree of election to salvation, 
according to the Scriptures, is founded on the 
Divine prescience. " Elect according to the 
foreknowledge of God, through sanctification of 
the Spirit unto obedience, and sprinkling of the 
blood of Jesus Christ." "Whom he did fore- 
know, he also did predestinate, to be conformed 
to the image of his Son." These scriptures 
seem to us decisive, that the decree of election 
rests on foreknowledge, and that this election is 
made, not according to the arbitrary act of God, 
but on the ground of sanctification and obedi- 
ence. The doctrine, therefore, that men are 
predestinated to eternal life, " without any fore- 
sight of faith or good works," must be false. 

2. The rewardableness of obedience, or the 
demerit of disobedience, can only exist in con- 
nection with the unnecessitated volitions of a 
free moral agent. The Scriptures abundantly 
teach, that to be saved, man must believe and 
obey ; and hence they command and exhort men 
to believe and obey, and promise them the re- 
ward of eternal life if they do this, and criminate 
them, if they neglect it. But, according to the 
doctrine of free agency already explained, man's 
obedience or disobedience, if it has any just rela- 
tion to rewards and punishments, must rest, in 
its responsible character, upon the self-determin- 
ing principle of the will. And if this view of 



32 



CALVES'ISTIC CONTROVERSY, 



the will be correct, there is an utter impossibility 
of an unconditional election. For the very act 
of God, imparting this self-determining principle 
to man, renders it impossible, in the nature of 
things, for the Almighty himself to elect a moral 
agent, unconditionally. The argument stands 
thus — The Scriptures make man a responsible 
moral agent ; but this he cannot be, if his will be 
controlled by foreign and unavoidable influences, 
therefore it is not so controlled : that is, man has 
within himself a self-determining principle, in 
the exercise of which he becomes responsible. 
This being established, we argue again — The 
doctrine cf unconditional election necessarily 
implies .irresistible grace, absolutely impelling 
and controlling the will. But this would be to 
counteract. God's own work, and to destroy 
man's accountability ; therefore tbere is no such 
irresistible grace, and, of course, no such uncon- 
ditional election. And since there is an election 
to eternal life, spoken of in the Scriptures, it 
follows conclusively, if the foregoing reasoning 
be sound, that this election is conditional. — 
Hence we may bring forward, in one over- 
whelming argument, all the numerous and vari- 
ous Bible conditions of salvation, as so many 
Scripture proofs of a conditional election. 

3. The cautions to the elect, and the intima- 
tions of their danger, and the possibility of their 
being lost, are so many Scripture proofs of a 
conditional election. Why should the saints be 
exhorted " to take heed lest they fall ?" " lest 
there be in them an evil heart of unbelief, in 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 33 

departing from the living God ?" "lest a promise 
being left of entering into rest, any should come 
short?" lest they should "also be cut off?'* 
Why should St. Paul fear lest, after having 
preached to others, he should be a castaway ? 
Either there is, or is not, danger of the elect's 
being lost. If not, then all these passages are 
not only without meaning, but savour very 
strongly of deceptions, They are false colours 
held out to the elect, for the purposes of alarm 
and fear, where no fear is. Will it be said, that 
possibly some of those addressed were not of 
the electj and were therefore deceiving them- 
selves, and needed to be cautioned and warned? 
I answer, they had then nothing to fall from, and 
no promise of which to come short. Besides, 
to warn such to standfast, seems to imply, that 
the Holy Spirit cautioned the reprobates against 
the danger of becoming the elect, which idea, 
while it intimates a very ungracious work for 
the " Spirit of grace" to be engaged in, clearly 
indicates, that there was danger of breaking the 
decree of reprobation ! We ask again, there- 
fore, What do these scriptures mean ? Will it 
be said, as some have argued, that these warn- 
ings and cautions are all consistent, because 
they are the very means by which the decree 
of election is made sure 1 But let it be under- 
> Stood, that the end is fixed, before the means | 
because Calvinism tells us, that this election is 
¥ independent of any faith or good works fore- 
seen," and that " God's decree lays a necessity 
on all things, so that everv thing he wills neetiksM 
a 



34 calvinistic controversy. 

sarily comes to pass," and is therefore sure* 
"because he has decreed it." The moment, 
therefore, God decrees an event, it becomes 
sure, and to talk of danger of a failure in that 
event, implies either a falsehood, or that God's 
decree can be broken. But Calvinists, I pre- 
sume, will not allow that there is any danger of 
counteracting or frustrating the plan of the Al- 
mighty. Hence there is no danger of the elect's 
coming short of salvation. All the exhorta- 
tions, cautions, and warnings therefore, recorded 
in the Scriptures, are false colours and deceptive 
motives. They are like the attempts of some 
weak parents, who undertake to frighten their 
children into obedience, by superstitious tales 
and groundless fears. God knows, when he is 
giving out these intimations of danger, that there 
is no such danger ; his own eternal, unchangea- 
ble decree had secured their salvation before the 
means were planned — all this if election is 
unconditional. But far be this from a God of 
truth. If he exhorts his creatures to " make 
their election sure," he has not made it sure. — 
If he teaches them to fear, lest they fail of the 
grace of God, there is doubtless real danger. 
The conclusion therefore is irresistible, that 
God hath suspended his decree of election to 
eternal life, on conditions ; c< He that believeth 
shall be saved." 

4. This accords also with Christian experi- 
ence. What is it that produces much fear and 
trembling in the mind of the awakened sinner 1 
Why does he feel that there is but a step be- 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 35 



tween him and destruction 1 Is it fancy, or is 
it fact ? If it is imagination merely, then all his 
alarm is founded in deception, and he has either 
deceived himself, or the Spirit of God hath de- 
ceived him. In either case, this alarm seems 
necessary, in order to lead him to Christ. That 
is, it is necessary for the conversion of one of 
the elect that he be made to believe a lie. But 
if it be said, that it is no lie, for he is really in 
danger, then we reply again, the decree of God 
hath not made his election sure, and of course, 
therefore, it is conditional. 

5. Express passages of Scripture teach a 
conditional election. We have time only to 
notice a few of them. Matt, xxii, 14, " For 
many are called, but few are chosen." This 
passage, with the parable of the wedding that 
precedes it, teaches that the choice was made 
subsequently to the call, and was grounded on 
the fact, that those chosen had actually and 
fully complied with the invitation, and had come 
to the wedding duly prepared. John xv, 19, 
" If ye were of the world, the world would love 
you, but because ye are not of the world, but I 
have chosen you out of the world, therefore the 
world hateth you." This passage teaches that 
Christ's disciples were once of the world, and 
that he had chosen them out of the world, and 
this choice evidently refers to that time when 
they became of a different character from the 
world ; for then it was, and in consequence of 
that election, that the world hated them.— 
2 Thess. ii, 13, is Because God hath from the 



36 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



beginning, chosen you to salvation, through 
sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the 
truth." Here is a condition plainly expressed. 
This is not an election unto sanctification, but 
an election through or by sanctification and faith 
unto salvation. 

From the whole then it appears, that the Holy 
Scriptures, the Divine attributes and govern- 
ment, and the agency of man, stand opposed to 
an unconditional, and are in favour of a condi- 
tional election. 

In opposition to these arguments, however, 
and in favour of unconditional election, our 
opponents urge various scriptures, which, as 
they think, are strong and incontrovertible argu- 
ments in favour of their system. And as these 
scriptures are their strong and only defence, it 
is proposed that they should be noticed. The 
limits of this discourse, however, will admit of 
but a short notice, and that not of individual 
texts, but of classes of texts. 

1. The first class of passages that we will 
now examine, which are supposed to favour the 
idea of unconditional election, is those that speak 
of a predestination unto holiness. Our text is 
one of the strongest instances of this kind, " He 
hath chosen us from the foundation of the world, 
that we should be holy — having predestinated us 
unto the adoption of sons," &c. See also Rom. 
viii, 29, " For whom he did foreknow, he also 
did predestinate to be conformed to the image of 
his Son," and " whom he did predestinate — he 
called — justified — and sanctified." The argiu 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 37 

ment upon these and similar passages is, that 
the decree of predestination could not be founded 
on their faith or holiness ; because they were 
predestiuated to become holy — the decree of 
predestination had their holiness for its object 
and end. But if these passages had an allusion 
to a personal election to eternal life, they would 
not prove unconditional election, " because," to 
use the language of another, " it would admit of 
being questioned, whether the choosing in Christ, 
before the foundation of the world here men- 
tioned, was a choice of certain persons as men 
merely, or as believing men, which is certainly 
the most rational." This exposition must ne- 
cessarily be given to the passage from the Ro- 
mans, since those who were the subjects of pre- 
destination, were first foreknown : foreknown, 
not merely as existing, for in this sense all were 
foreknown, but foreknown, as possessing some- 
thing which operated as a reason why they 
should be elected, rather than others : fore- 
known doubtless as believers in Christ, and as 
such, according to the plan and decree of God, 
they were to be made conformable to the image 
of Christ's holiness here, and glory hereafter. 
And according to the same Divine plan, the order 
of this work was, 1. The call; 2. Justification; 
3. Glorification. And this interpretation, which 
so obviously upon the face of it is the meaning 
of the passage from Romans, would also be a 
good meaning to the passage in Ephesians, if 
that passage should be understood in reference 
to personal election. But I do not so understand 



38 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

it; and I think any unprejudiced reader, by 
looking at the context, and especially from the 
9th to the 11th verses inclusive, in this chapter, 
and at most of the 2d chapter, will perceive 
that the apostle is here speaking of that general 
plan of God, which had been fixed from the 
beginning, of admitting the Gentiles as well as 
the Jews to the privileges of the covenant of 
grace, on equal terms and conditions. Thus the 
middle wall of partition was to be broken down 
between Jew and Gentile ; and this was the mys- 
tery which was concealed for ages, not being 
understood even by the Jews themselves, but 
then by the Gospel was brought to light. Ac- 
cording to this plan, the Ephesians and all other 
Gentiles were chosen or elected to these Chris- 
tian privileges, the very design and purpose of 
which were to make them holy ; and in the im- 
provement of which, according to the prescribed 
conditions of faith in Christ, and repentance 
toward God, they should become his adopted 
children. 

This Preappointing of the Gentiles to the 
privileges of the gracious covenant, is the elec- 
tion most spoken of in the New Testament. — 
And the reason why it was so often introduced, 
especially in the writings of Paul, who was the 
chief apostle to the Gentiles, was, because the 
Jews so uniformly and earnestly opposed this 
feature of Christianity. They could not be 
reconciled to the idea, that the peculiar and dis- 
tinctive character of their theocracy and ecclesi- 
astical policy should be so changed, or that the 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 39 



dealings of God with the world should be ex- 
plained in such a manner as to give them no 
superior claims, in the privileges of the Divine 
covenant, over the Gentiles. They considered 
themselves to be God's elect and favourite peo- 
ple, but the Gentiles were reprobates. The 
apostles felt themselves under the strongest obli- 
gations to oppose these notions, not only because, 
if allowed, they would operate as a barrier to 
the diffusion of the Gospel among the heathens, 
and thus the designs of Divine mercy to the 
world would be thwarted, but also because these 
Jewish sentiments were in direct opposition to 
the grace of God. They implied, that the ori- 
ginal design of God in favouring the Jews, was 
founded, not upon his mere mercy and grace, 
but upon some goodness in them or their fathers. 
Hence they not only limited the blessings of 
the Gospel, but they also corrupted its gracious 
character, and thereby fed their own Phari- 
saic pride, and dishonoured God. This will 
open the way for explaining many other 
scriptures which the Calvinists press into their 
service* 

2. Especially will it assist in explaining those 
passages which speak of election as depending 
solely on the sovereign will of God. The 
strongest of these are in the ninth chapter of the 
Epistle to the Romans. This portion of reve- 
lation is the strong hold, as is supposed, of Cal- 
vinism. Whereas, we humbly conceive that 
there is not one word in the whole chapter, of 
unconditional and personal election to eternal 



40 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



life. It is only necessary to read that epistle 
carefully, to see that the apostle is combatting 
that exclusive and Pharisaic doctrine of the 
Jews, already alluded to, and is proving in a 
forcible strain of argumentation, from reason 
and Scripture, that the foundation of the plan 
of salvation for sinners, was the goodness and 
unmerited love of God — that all, both Jews and 
Gentiles, were sinners, and therefore stood in 
the same relation to God— all equally eligible 
to salvation, and must, if saved at all, be saved 
on the same terms. To prove this, he argues 
strenuously, that God's favour to the Jews, as a 
nation, was not of any goodness in them, but of 
his own sovereign will and pleasure, so that his 
covenant of favour with the Hebrews, and his 
covenant of grace which embraced the Gentiles, 
was e * not of works, lest any man should boast/* 
M not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, 
but of God that showeth mercy." The apostle 
shows them, too, that the covenant made with 
Abraham was not for circumcision, nor for the 
works of the law, so far as it affected him or 
his posterity, because it was made while Abra- 
ham was in uncircumcision, and on the condi- 
tion of faith. He argues farther* that this election 
of the Jews to the enjoyment of these national 
and ecclesiastical privileges, was not because 
they were children of Abraham, for Ishmael was, 
a child of Abraham, and yet he and his posterity 
were rejected ; nor yet because they were the 
children of Abraham through Isaac, because 
Esau and his posterity were reprobated froi$ 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



41 



these national privileges, while Jacob and his 
posterity were the chosen seed — not chosen to 
eternal life, because many of them perished in 
sin and unbelief, but to the peculiar privileges 
of God's covenant people. And all this because 
it was the good pleasure of his will. And as a 
sovereign, he had the same right to elect the 
Gentiles to the enjoyment of the covenant of 
mercy, and upon the same conditions of faith. 
The apostle concludes this reasoning by an 
argument which cuts off entirely the idea of 
unconditional personal election and reprobation. 
He informs us, that the reason why the unbe- 
lieving Jews did not attain to personal righteous- 
ness, was " because they sought it not by faith, 
but as it were by the works of the law and 
the Gentiles attained to personal righteousness, 
because they sought it by faith. Hence, those 
that were not his people, became his people, and 
those that were not beloved, became beloved — 
and these, " not of the Jews only, but also of the 
Gentiles." Whereas, if the doctrine we oppose 
be true, the elect were always his people, and 
always beloved, and that because he pleased to 
have it so. That portion of Scripture, there-* 
fore, on which Calvinism leans for its greatest 
support, not only affords it no aid, but actually 
teaches a different doctrine. There is indeed 
something of mystery hanging over the provi- 
dence of God, in bestowing peculiar advantages 
pn some, and withholding them from others. 
But on this subject much light is cast from vari^ 
pus considerations which we have not time 



42 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



enlarge upon ; but especially from that whole- 
some and consistent Scripture doctrine, that " it 
is required of a man according to what he hath, 
and not according to what he hath not." This 
removes at once all complaint of Jew and Gen- 
tile, and authorizes the reply, so often misap- 
plied, " Who art thou that repliest against God V 9 
As a sovereign, God has a right to make his 
creatures differ in these things, so long as he 
requires only as he gives. But this differs as 
widely from the Calvinistic idea of sovereignt3 r , 
as justice from injustice, as equity from iniquity. 
In fact, God no where in the Scripture, places 
the election of individuals to eternal life, solely 
on the ground of his sovereignty, but uniformly 
on the ground of their complying with the con- 
ditions of the covenant of grace. Hence his 
people are a 'peculiar people — his sheep liear his 
voice and follow him — they are chosen out of the 
world — they are in Christ, not by an eternal 
decree of election, but by faith — for " if any 
man be in Christ, he is a new creature" — and 
of course, he is not in him, until he is a " new 
creature" — then, and not before, they become 
his, and he seals them as such, " In whom, after 
that ye believed, ye were sealed with the Holy 
Spirit of promise." But if they were elected 
from eternity, tbey would be his when they did 
not hear his voice, and were not new creatures. 

3. From what has been said, we can easily 
answer a third class of scriptures which the 
Calvinists dwell upon to support their system — 
viz. those which declare salvation to be of grace 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 43 

and not of works. Of these there is evidently 
a large catalogue of very express and unequivo- 
cal passages. Take two or three for an exam- 
ple of the whole, " Even so then, at the present 
time, there is a remnant, according to the elec- 
tion of grace, and if it be by grace then it is no 
more of works, otherwise grace is no more 
grace ; but if it be of works, then it is no more 
grace, otherwise work is no more work." " By 
grace ye are saved." " Having predestinated 
us unto the adoption of his children, &c, to the 
praise of the glory of his grace." " Not by 
works of righteousness which we have done, but 
according to his mercy he saved us, by the 
washing of regeneration and renewing of the 
Holy Ghost." Now we profess to believe 
these scriptures as unqualifiedly and as cordi- 
ally as the Calvinists ; and we think them per- 
fectly in accordance with our views of election. 
For we believe, as has been already stated, that 
God's plan for saving sinners originated entirely 
in his love to his undeserving creatures. There 
was nothing in all the character and circum- 
stances of the fallen family, except their sin and 
deserved misery, that could claim the interposi- 
tion of God's saving power. The way of execut- 
ing his gracious plan, and rendering it available 
in any case, he of course, as a sovereign, reser- 
ved to himself. And if he saw that a condi- 
tional election was best suited to the principles 
of his government, and the responsibility of man, 
shall it be said, this cannot be, for it destroys 
the idea of grace ? Cannot a conditional elec- 



44 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

tion be of grace ? Let the intelligent and can- 
did answer. Even many of the Calvinists 
acknowledge that salvation is conditional, and 
yet it is of grace ; for " by grace ye are saved." 
Now if salvation is conditional and yet of grace, 
why not election ? Let Calvinists answer this 
question. 

But that our doctrine of election is of grace, 
will appear evident, I think, from the following 
considerations. 1. It was pure unmerited love 
that moved God to provide salvation for our 
world. 2. The Gospel plan, therefore, with all 
its provisions and conditions, is of grace. Not 
a step in that whole system, but rests in grace, 
is presented by grace, and is executed through 
grace. 3. Even the power of the will to choose 
life, and the conditions of life, is a gracious 
power. A fallen man, without grace, could no 
more choose to submit to God than a fallen 
angel. Herein we differ widely from the Cal- 
vinists. They tell us man has a natural power 
to choose life. If so, he has power to get to 
heaven without grace ! We say, on the con- 
trary, that man is utterly unable to choose the 
way to heaven, or to pursue it when chosen, 
without the grace of God. It is grace that 
enlightens and convinces the sinner, and strength- 
ens him to seek after and obtain salvation, for 
" without Christ we can do nothing" Let the 
candid judge between us, then, and decide which 
system most robs our gracious Redeemer of his 
glory, that which gives man a native and inhe- 
rent power to get to heaven of himself, or that 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 45 

which attributes all to grace. 4. Finally, when 
the sinner repents and believes, there is no merit 
in these acts to procure forgiveness and regene- 
ration, and therefore, though he is now, and on 
these conditions, elected, and made an heir of 
salvation, yet it is for Christ's sake, and " not 
for works of righteousness which he has done." 
Thus we " bring forth the top stone with shout- 
ing, crying grace, grace, unto it." Having gone 
over and examined the arguments in favour of 
unconditional election, we come to the last part 
of our subject ; which was to urge some objec- 
tions against this doctrine. 

1. The doctrine of the unconditional election 
of a partj necessarily implies the unconditional 
reprobation of the rest. I know some who hold 
to the former, seem to deny the latter ; for 
they represent God as reprobating sinners, in 
view of their sins. When all were sinners, they 
say God passed by some, and elected others. 
Hence, they say the decree of damnation against 
the reprobates is just, because it is against sin- 
ners. But this explanation is virtually giving 
up the system, inasmuch as it gives up all the 
principal arguments by which it is supported. 
In the first place, it makes predestination depen- 
dent on foreknowledge ; for God first foresees 
that they will be sinners, and then predestinates 
them to punishment. Here is one case then, in 
which the argument for Calvinian predestination 
is destroyed by its own supporters. But again i 
if God must fix by his decree all parts of his 
plan, in order to prevent disappointment, then 



46 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

he must fix the destiny of the reprobates, and 
the means that lead to it. But if he did not do 
this, then the Calvinistic argument in favour of 
predestination, drawn from the Divine plan, falls 
to the ground. Once more : this explanation of 
the decree of reprobation destroys all the strong- 
est Scripture arguments which the Calvinists 
urge in favour of unconditional election. The 
passages, for instance, in the ninth of Romans, 
which are so often quoted in favour of Calvinian 
election, are connected with others, equally 
strong, in favour of unconditional reprobation. 
When it is said, " He will have mercy on whom 
he will have mercy," it is said also, " Whom he 
will he hardeneth." He that " makes one ves- 
sel unto honour, maketh another unto dishonour. " 
He that says, " Jacob have I loved," says also 
in the same manner, " Esau have I hated." 
Now if these relate to personal election to eter- 
nal life, they relate also to personal reprobation 
to eternal death. But if there is any explana- 
tion, by which these are showed not to prove 
unconditional reprobation to eternal death, the 
same principle of explanation will, and must 
show, that they do not prove Calvinistic election. 
From henceforth, therefore, let all those Cal- 
vinists who profess not to believe in uncondi- 
tional reprobation, cease to urge, in favour of 
their system, any arguments drawn from the 
foreknowledge of God, or the necessity of a 
Divine plan, or from those scriptures that are 
most commonly quoted in favour of their doc- 
trine. But when they do this, their system must 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 47 

necessarily fall ; for all its main pillars will be 
removed. But I have not done with this objec- 
tion yet. Whoever maintains that " God hath 
foreordained whatsoever comes to pass," must 
also hold to unconditional reprobation. Does it 
come to pass, that some are lost? Then this 
was ordained. Was sin necessary, as a pre- 
tence to damn them ? Then this was ordained. 
From these and other views of the subject, Cal- 
vin was led to say, that " election could not 
stand without reprobation," and that it was "quite 
silly and childish" to attempt to separate them. 
All, therefore, who hold to the unconditional 
election of a part of mankind to eternal life, must, 
to be consistent with themselves, take into their 
creed, the " horrible decree" of reprobation. — 
They must believe that in the ages of eternity 
God determined to create men and angels for the 
express purpose to damn them eternally ! That 
he determined to introduce sin, and influence 
men to commit sin, and harden them in it, that 
they might be fit subjects of his wrath ! That 
for doing as they were impelled to do, by the 
irresistible decree of Jehovah, they must lie 
down for ever, under the scalding phials of his 
vengeance in the pit of hell ! To state this doc- 
trine in its true character, is enough to chill 
one's blood — and we are drawn by all that is 
rational within us, to turn away from such a God 
with horror, as from the presence of an Almighty 
Tyrant. 

2. This doctrine of election, while it pro- 
fesses to vindicate free grace and the mercy of 



48 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

God, destroys them altogether. To the repro- 
bates, there is certainly no grace or mercy 
extended. Their very existence, connected as 
it necessarily is with eternal damnation, is an 
infinite curse. The temporal blessings which 
they enjoy, the insincere offers that are held out 
to them, and the Gospel privileges with which 
they are mocked, if they Can be termed grace 
at all, must be called damning grace. For all 
this is only fattening them for the slaughter, and 
fitting them to suffer, to a more aggravated 
extent, the unavoidable pains and torments that 
await them. Hence Calvin's sentiment, that 
" God calls to the reprobates, that they may be 
more deaf — kindles a light, that they may be 
more blind—brings his doctrine to them, that 
they may be more ignorant— and applies the 
remedy to them, that they may not be healed," 
is an honest avowal of the legitimate principles 
of this system. Surely, then, no one will pre- 
tend, that, according to this doctrine, there is 
any grace for the reprobate. And perhaps a 
moment's attention will show, that there is little 
or none for the elect. It is said, that God, out 
of his mere sovereignty, without any thing in 
the creature to move him thereto, elects sinners 
to everlasting life. But if there is nothing in 
the creature to move him thereto, how can it be 
called mercy or compassion 1 He did not 
determine to elect them because they were 
miserable, but because he pleased to elect them. 
If misery had been the exciting cause, then as 
all were equally miserable, he would have elected 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 49 



them all. Is such a decree of election founded 
in love to the suffering object ? No : it is the 
result of the most absolute and omnipotent selfish, 
ness conceivable. It is the exhibition of a char- 
acter that sports most sovereignly and arbitrarily, 
with his Almighty power, to create, to damn, 
and to save. 

Some indeed pretend that, at any rate, salva- 
tion is of grace, if election is not, because God 
saves miserable., perishing sinners. But who 
made them miserable perishing sinners ? Was 
not this the effect of God's decree? And is 
there much mercy displayed in placing men 
under a constitution which necessarily and 
unavoidably involves them in sin and suffering, 
that God may afterward have the sovereign 
honour of saving them ? Surely the tenderest 
mercies of this system are cruel — its brightest 
parts are dark — its boasted mercy hardly comes 
up to sheer justice, even to the elect ; since 
they only receive back what God had deprived 
them of, and for the want of which they had 
suffered perhaps for years ; and to obtain which, 
they could do nothing even as a condition, until 
God by his sovereign power bestowed it upon 
them. And as for the reprobates, the Gospel 
is unavoidably to them, a savour of death unto 
death. To them Christ came, that they might 
have death, and that they might have it more 
abundantly. Thus, turn this system as you 
will, it sweeps away the mercy and goodness of 
God, destroys the grace of the Gospel, and in 
most cases, transforms even the invitations and 
4 



50 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

promises into scalding messages of aggravated 
wrath. 

3. The doctrine we oppose makes God 
partial and a respecter of persons ; contrary to 
express and repeated declarations of Scripture. 
For it represents God as determining to save 
some and damn others, without reference to 
their character, all being precisely in the same 
state. To deny this, is to acknowledge that the 
decree of election and reprobation had respect 
to character, which is to give up the doctrine, 
Some indeed pretend, that the decree of election 
was unconditional, but not the decree of repro- 
bation. But this is impossible ; for there could 
be no decree of election, only in view of the 
whole number from which the choice was to be 
made ; and the very determination to select 
such a number, and those only, implied the 
exclusion of all the rest. If it be said, as the 
Sublapsarians contend, that the decree of elec- 
tion did not come in until all were fallen, or 
viewed in the mind of God as fallen^ and 
therefore since all might have been justly 
damned, there was no injustice to those who 
were left, though some of the guilty were taken 
and saved ; we reply, That even this would not 
wholly remove the objection of partiality. But 
we* need not dwell here, because we have a 
shorter and more decisive way to dispose of 
this argument. The truth is, it does not cover 
the whole ground of our objection. Had God 
nothing to do with man until his prescient eye 
beheld the whole race in a ruined state ? How 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 51 

came man in this state ? He was plunged there 
by the sin of his federal head. But how came 
he to sin 1 " Adam sinned," says Calvin, 
" because God so ordained." And so every one 
must say, that believes God foreordained what- 
soever comes to pass. Taking all the links 
together, they stand thus : — God decreed to 
create intelligent beings — he decreed that they 
should all become sinners and children of wrath 
- — and it was so. He then decreed that part of 
those whom he had constituted heirs of wrath, 
should be taken, and washed, and saved, and 
the others left to perish ; and then we are told 
there is no unjust partiality in God, since they 
all deserve to be damned ! What a singular 
evasion is this ! God wishes to damn a certain 
portion of his creatures, and save the rest ; but 
he cannot do this without subjecting himself to 
the charge of partiality. To avoid this, he 
plunges them all into sin and ruin, and forthwith 
he declares them all children of wrath, and 
heirs of hell. But in the plenitude of his 
grace, he snatches some from the pit of ruin, 
and leaves the rest in remediless wo ! Is such a 
supposition worthy of our righteous God ? — 
Does it accord either with his justice or wisdom ? 
Reason, with half an eye, can see through the 
flimsy veil, and discover the weakness of the 
device. I know an attempt has been often 
made to charge these consequences upon our 
system, as well as upon the Calvinistic doctrine. 
For if it is acknowledged that man is born 
depraved, and this depravity is damning in its 



52 CALVINXSTIC CONTROVERSY. 

nature, does it not follow, it is asked, that all 
deserve to perish ? And therefore God may 
elect some and justly pass by the rest. I 
answer — Although all moral depravity, derived 
or contracted, is damning in its nature, still, by 
virtue of the atonement, the destructive effects 
of derived depravity are counteracted ; and guilt 
is not imputed, until by a voluntary rejection of 
the Gospel remedy, man makes the depravity of 
his nature the object of his own choice. — 
Hence, although abstractly considered, this 
depravity is destructive to the possessors, yet 
through the grace of the Gospel, all are born 
free from condemnation. So the Apostle Paul, 
" As by the offence of one, judgment came 
upon all men to condemnation, so by the righte- 
ousness of one, the free gift came upon all men, 
unto justification of life." In accordance with 
these views also, the ground of condemnation, 
according to the Scriptures, is not our native 
depravity ; but the sinner is condemned for 
rejecting Christ, — for refusing to occupy upon 
the talents given, — for rejecting light, — for 
quenching the Spirit, — for unbelief. Here then 
is the difference on this point between the 
Calvinists and us. They hold that God, by 
his decree, plunged Adam and all his race into 
the pit of sin, from which none of them had the 
means of escape ; but by an omnipotent act of 
partial grace, he delivers a part, and the remain- 
der are left unavoidably to perish. We, on the 
contrary, believe that by Adam's unnecessitated 
sin he, and in him all his posterity, became 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



53 



obnoxious to the curse of the Divine law. As 
the first man sinned personally and actively, he 
was personally condemned ; but as his posterity 
had no agency or personal existence, they could 
only have perished seminally in him. By the 
promise of a Saviour however, our federal head 
was restored to the possibility of obtaining 
salvation, through faith in the Redeemer. And 
in this restoration, all the seminal generations 
of men were included. Their possible and 
prospective existence was restored ; and their 
personal and active existence secured. And 
with this also, the possibility of salvation was 
secured to all. To such as never come to a 
personally responsible age, this salvation was 
secured unconditionally by Christ ; to all those 
who arrived to the age of accountability, 
salvation was made possible, on equal and im- 
partial conditions. Thus, while on our principle, 
there is not the slightest ground for a charge of 
partiality; on the Calvinistic principle, the 
charge seems to lie with all its weight. It makes 
God, in the worst sense /of the terms, partial, 
and a respecter of persons. 

4. This doctrine is objectionable, because, 
contrary to express and repeated passages of 
Scripture, it necessarily limits the atonement. 
It will surely not be expected, that we should 
attempt to prove that Christ " tasted death for 
every man" — that he " gave himself a ransom 
for all" — that he " died for all" — that he became 
" a propitiation for the sins of the whole worlcl" — ■ 
because, these are so many express Scripture pro- 



54 



CALVIMSTIC CONTROVERSY. 



positions, and rest directly on the authority of 
God. And while these stand, the doctrine of par- 
ticular and unconditional election must fall, for 
the two doctrines are incompatible. That par- 
ticular election and partial redemption must stand 
or fall together, has been acknowledged, and is 
still maintained by most Calvinists ; and there- 
fore they have endeavoured to explain away 
those passages, which so clearly declare that 
" Christ died for all." But in this work they 
have found so many difficulties, that others, and 
among them most of the Calvinistic clergy in 
New-England, have acknowledged a general 
redemption, and have undertaken to reconcile 
with it the doctrine of particular election and 
reprobation. But this reconciliation is as diffi- 
cult as the other. To say nothing now of the 
utter uselessness of making an atonement for 
the reprobates, unless for the purpose of making 
their unavoidable damnation more aggravated, 
we would ask, What is the object of the atone- 
ment? Let these very Calvinists themselves 
answer. They tell us, that its object was, to 
open the way, by which it might be possible for 
sinners to be saved. But has the atonement 
made it possible for the reprobates to be saved ? 
If so, then perhaps they will be saved, and there- 
fore the idea of unconditional election and repro- 
bation is false. But if the atonement has only 
made it possible for the elect to be saved, then 
it was made only for the elect. Let the sup- 
porters of this system choose which horn of this 
dilemma they please ; either will destroy their 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



55 



doctrine. For as it is absurd to talk about 
redeeming grace and Gospel provisions, sufficient 
to save those who are eternally and effectually 
excluded from these blessings, so it is idle to talk- 
about a redemption for all, which includes 
provisions sufficient only to save the elect. Not 
even the fiction of a natural ability in all men 
to serve God and get to heaven, will help this 
difficulty. For allowing, in the argument, that 
the reprobates have ability to serve God and 
gain heaven, without grace, and in spite of God's 
decree, still, as this is called a nat-ural ability, it 
is plain it is not the fruit of the atonement. It 
is equally irrelevant to argue that the atonement 
may be said to be universal, because it contains 
enough to save the whole world, if they would 
or could embrace it, and it is only their exces- 
sive depravity which renders it impossible for 
them to receive the atonement. For this is the 
same as to say, that a physician has an efficient 
remedy to heal his patient, only he is so sick 
he cannot take it. This excessive weakness is 
that for which the physician should prescribej 
and to which the medicine should be applied. 
And if it does not come to this it is no medicine 
for this case. So the atonement, if it is not a 
remedy for man's extreme depravity, it is no 
provision for him. If it does not give a gracious 
power to all sinners to embrace salvation, it has 
accomplished nothing for the depraved repro- 
bate. Since, therefore, according to Calvinism, 
the atonement provides for the reprobate 
neither natural nor moral ability to serve God s 



50 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

nor makes it possible for him to be saved, it 
follows, that the atonement is made only for the 
elect. But as this is contrary to the word of 
God, the doctrine that leads to this conclusion 
must be false. 

5. If time would permit, I might here notice 
at some length several objections to this 
doctrine : — Such as that it takes away all motives 
to repentance, by giving the sinner just cause to 
say, " If I am to be saved, I shall be, do what 
I may ; and if I am to be damned, I must be, 
do what I can ;" — it leads to the idea of infant 
damnation — it weakens the zeal and paralyzes 
the efforts of devotion and benevolence — it de- 
stroys the end of punishment, the original design 
of which was to prevent sin, but which, ac- 
cording to this doctrine, was designed merely 
for the glory of God ; and sin was ordained 
for the purpose of giving God an opportunity of 
glorifying himself in punishing it. These and 
others might be dwelt upon with effect ; but 
passing them all, I hasten to the conclusion of 
my arguments, by urging only one more objection 
to the system I am opposing. 

6. We are suspicious of this doctrine, because 
its advocates themselves seem studious to cover 
up and keep out of sight many of its features, 
and are constantly changing their manner of 
stating and defending their system. A little 
attention to the history of the controversy be- 
tween predestinarians and their opposers, will 
show the truth and force of this objection. The 
charge that Calvinism covers up and keeps out 



CALVIN1STIC CONTROVERSY. 57 

of sight some of its most offensive features, does 
not lie so much against its advocates of the old 
school, as those of the modern. With the 
exception of some logical consequences, which 
we think chargeable upon the system, and which 
they were unwilling to allow, these early de- 
fenders of unconditional election came out boldly 
and fearlessly with their doctrine. If modern 
Calvinists would do the same, we should need no 
other refutation of the system. But even the 
early supporters of Calvinism, when pressed by 
their opponents, resorted to various forms of 
explanation and modes of proof, and also to vari- 
ous modifications of the system itself. Goodwin, 
in his work entitled, " Agreement of Brethren," 
&c, says : — " The question, as to the object of 
the decrees, has gone out among our Calvinistic 
brethren into endless digladiations and irrecon- 
cilable divisions," and then goes on to mention 
nine of these " irreconcilable divisions" that pre- 
vailed at his day. At the present day these school 
subtilties are not so prevalent, but numerous 
changes of a more popular cast, and such as 
are suited to cover up the offensive features of 
the system, are now introduced. The modern 
defence of this doctrine consists chiefly in the 
dexterous use of certain ambiguous technicalities 
which, in this theology, mean one thing, and in 
common language another. And this is carried 
to such an extent, that it is now a common 
thing to hear parishioners contend strenuously 
that their pastors do not hold to predestination, 
when it is well known to some 3 at least, that they 



58 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

do ; and that they are exerting themselves to 
spread the sentiment. 

This is a subject, permit me here to say, on 
which I touch with more reluctance than upon 
any other point involved in this controversy. To 
represent the thing as it is, seems so much like 
accusing our brethren of insincerity and dupli- 
city, that nothing but a regard to truth would 
induce me to allude to it. Whether this arises 
from an excessive but honest zeal for their sys- 
tem, or whether it is supposed the cause is so 
important, and at the same time so difficult to be 
sustained, that the end will justify what, in other 
cases, would be judged questionable policy, and 
hardly reconcilable with the spirit of a guileless 
Christianity, is certainly not for me to decide. 
With respect to their motives, they will stand or 
fall by the judgment of Him that trieth the reins. 
But the course, at any rate, seems very repre- 
hensible. Take one instance : — All sinners, we 
are told, may come to Christ if they will ; and 
therefore they are criminal if they do not, — 
Now this mode of speech corresponds very well 
with Scripture and reason. And who, that had 
not been specially instructed in the dialect of 
this theology, would understand that this mode 
of speech, according to Hopkinsian technics, 
implied an inability and an impossibility of ob- 
taining salvation ? And yet this is the fact : for 
though, according to this system, if we have a 
will to come to Christ, we may, yet by a Divine 
constitution it is as much impossible to have this 
will as it is JLo break the decree of Jehovah. — 



CALVIXISTIC CON TItO VEKSl f . 



Hence all such modes of speech are worse than 
unmeaning ; they have a deceptive meaning. 
They mean one thing in this creed, and another 
thing in popular language. It never occurs to 
the generality of mankind, when they are told 
they may do thus and thus, if they will, that there 
is a secret omnipotent influence impelling and 
controlling the will. They suppose these ex- 
pressions, therefore, mean that, independent of 
all irresistible foreign influences, they have, 
within themselves, the power to choose or not to 
choose : and yet the real meaning of the speaker 
differs as much from this, as a negative differs 
from an affirmative. 

In perfect accordance with the foregoing, is 
the common explanation that is given to the doc- 
trine of election and reprobation. Reprobation 
is kept out of sight ; and yet it is as heartily 
believed by modern Calvinists, as it was by John 
Calvin himself. It is taught too ; but it is taught 
covertly. And yet when we quote old-fashioned 
Calvinism, in its primitive plain dress, we are 
told these are old authors ; we do not believe 
with them : " if we had lived in the days of our 
fathers, we would not have been partakers with 
them in their errors" and yet u they are wit- 
nesses unto themselves, that they are the children 
of them" who taught these errors. They re- 
commend their writings, they garnish their se- 
pulchres, they teach their catechisms to the 
rising generation ; they say, even in their 
Church articles of faith, " We believe in the doc- 
trines of grace, as held and taught by the fa- 



60 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

thers and reformers in the Church," — and espe- 
cially do they hold to that root and foundation 
of the whole system, " God hath, from all 
eternity, foreordained whatsoever comes to 
pass." 

Since I have alluded to Church articles, it 
will be in support of this objection to say that 
the written creeds of Churches partake of this 
same ambiguous character. They are either 
expressed in texts of Scripture, or in doubtful 
and obscure terms ; so that different construc- 
tions can be put upon them, according to the 
faith of the subscriber. And instances have 
been known, in which articles of faith have been 
altered, again and again, to accommodate scru- 
pulous candidates. And yet their candidates 
for holy orders, and for professorships, in their 
theological institutions, are required to subscribe 
to a rigid Calvinistic creed. In this way it is 
expected, doubtless, that the doctrine will be 
maintained and perpetuated, though in other 
respects public opinion should be accommodated. 
How would honest John Calvin, if he could be 
introduced among us, with the same sentiments 
he had when on earth, frown upon the Churches 
that bear his name ! He would not only call 
them " silly and childish," but he would, doubt- 
less, in his bold, blunt manner, charge them 
with disingenuousness and cowardice, if not 
with downright duplicity, for thus shunning and 
smoothing over and covering up, the more repul- 
sive features of their system. How would 
he chide them for shifting their ground, and 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



61 



changing their system, while they nevertheless 
pretend to build on the same foundation of pre- 
destination ! He would, we believe, sternly in- 
quire of them what they meant by saying, all 
sinners, not excepting reprobates, may come to 
Christ and be saved? — why they pretended to 
hold to election, and not to reprobation ? — how 
they could reconcile general redemption with 
particular election ? — and especially would he 
frown indignantly upon that new doctrine, lately 
preached and defended, in what has been sup- 
posed to be the head quarters of orthodoxy in 
New-England, by which we are taught that 
derived depravity is not any taint or sinful cor- 
ruption of our moral constitution, but consists, 
exclusively and entirely, in moral exercise ! But 
probably he would get little satisfaction from those 
who profess his creed and bear his name. They 
would tell him that the old forms of this system 
were so repulsive, the people would not receive 
them ; and that, being hard pressed by their 
antagonists, they had thrown up these new re- 
doubts, and assumed these new positions, not 
only to conceal their doctrine, but if possible 
to defend it. And as he could get little satis- 
faction of the?n, he would get less from us. — 
Could we meet the venerable reformer, we would 
thank him for his successful zeal and labour in 
the Protestant cause ; but we would expostulate 
with him for giving sanction and currency to his 
" horrible decree." We would tell him he had 
committed to his followers a system so abhor- 
rent to reason, and so difficult to be supported 



62 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



by Scripture, that they had been driven into all 
these changes in hope of finding some new and 
sate ground of defence ; and that, while we con- 
sidered this as a striking and convincing argu- 
ment against the doctrine itself, we viewed it as 
auspicious of its final overthrow ; that these 
changes, refinements, and concealments, were 
symptoms that the doctrine was waxing old, and 
was ready to vanish away. 

But I must conclude this discourse. To your 
serious consideration, Christian brethren, I com- 
mend the sentiments contained in it. What- 
ever you may think of the discourse itself,. I 
cannot fail, I think, of escaping censure. Those 
who accord with the sentiments here defended, 
will of course approve ; and those who believe 
in predestination will of course be reconciled to 
the preaching because God hath decreed it. It 
hath come to pass that I have preached as I 
have, and therefore it is a part of the Divine 
plan. It hath come pass that Arminianism 
exists, and therefore this is a part of the Divine 
plan. We beg our brethren who differ from us. 
not to fight against God's plan. If they say it 
is right for us to fight against it, because this also 
is decreed — I answer, This only confirms our 
objections against the system, for it arrays the 
Deity against himself. From all such incon- 
sistencies, may the God of truth deliver vs. 
Amen. 



CA&VINISTI.C CONTROVERSY. 63 



NUMBER I. 

REPLY TO THE CHRISTIAN SPECTATOR.* 

This sermon had been before the public 
almost two years before it received any notice, 
so far as the author is informed, from any of the 
advocates of predestination. After the third 
edition was announced, there were several pass- 
ing acrimonious censures in some of the Calvin- 
istic periodicals, which did not affect the merits 
of the question at issue between us and the pre- 
destinarians. At length the Rev. Mr. Tyler, of 
this city, (Middletown, Conn.,) published a ser- 
mon which was evidently written in reference 
to the sermon on predestination. This sermon 
of Mr. T. might have been noticed ; but its 
general positions were so indefinite, and its 
modes of illustration so vague, it seemed hardly 
calculated to narrow the field of controversy or 
hasten a decision of the question at issue. For 
example : Mr. T. defines election to be "the 
eternal purpose of God to renew, sanctify, and 
save every man whom he wisely can, and no 
others." With such a proposition there cer- 
tainly can be no controversy, for it leaves the 
subject more vague, and the point in dispute more 
confused than before a definition was attempted. 
There are two errors, the antipodes of each 
other, which, in all controversy, and especially 

* The review of the sermon, in the Christian 
Spectator, is understood to be from the pen of Doctor 
Fitch, professor of divinity in Yale College. 



64 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

religious controversy, ought to be carefully 
guarded against. The one is an attempt to 
make the subjects of difference more numerous 
and consequential than they are in truth ; and 
the other is an attempt to cover up real differences 
under indefinite propositions and ambiguous 
terms. Both these errors may be the result of 
honest motives : the former may arise from a 
jealous regard to the truth, and the latter from 
a love of peace. Both, however, are injurious ; 
for neither does the one promote the cause of 
truth, nor does the other secure a permanent 
peace. Indeed, bringing antagonist principles 
into contact gives an additional impulse to their 
repellent forces, so that a transient union pro- 
duces, in the end, greater discord. Though the 
controversy in the Church, between Calvinists 
and Arminians, has been long and injurious ; yet, 
as an individual, I never can sign a union creed 
of doubtful terms and ambiguous articles. Nor 
can I deem it worth my while to contend about 
such terms and articles. I should fear the 
searching interrogatory of Him who questioned 
Job : * Who is this that darkeneth counsel by 
words without knowledge ?" In the present con- 
troversy there is danger of this ambiguity also 
from a less commendable principle than a love 
of peace, viz. an adherence to old symbols of 
faith to avoid the imputation of a change ; while, 
at the same time, to escape the force of unan- 
swerable argument, vague propositions, ambigu- 
ous definitions, and equivocal terms are made the 
bulwark of defence. This principle was alluded 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



to In the sermon on predestination ; and although 
it has given great offence to some of the Cal 
vinists, and is represented by the author of the 
review which we are about to notice as being 
« utterly unworthy of the attention of a person 
who is honestly inquiring after truth yet it 
seems to me he knows little of his own heart 
who thinks himself incapable of such a course. 
Nor does it seem utterly unworthy of an honest 
inquirer after truth to mark the effects of 
arguments upon systems, since the changes 
effected in those systems, by the arguments 
urged against them, show the strength of the one 
and the weakness of the other. If, therefore, I 
should undertake to answer Mr. Tyler's sermon, 
my strictures would consist chiefly in pointing 
out its indefiniteness and incongruity. But this, 
without convincing, might give offence. And 
although I see no way of continuing the contro- 
versy, as the Calvinists now manage it, without 
alluding to this course of the advocates of pre- 
destination, yet I am happy to say there is less 
of it in the " review" before us than is common 
in modern treatises on that subject. Though it 
is a laboured article of about forty-three pages, 
yet it is generally in a manly style, and sustained 
by a train of close and skilful argumentation. 
It would afford me great pleasure to be able to 
equal the reviewer's ingenuity, and still more to 
throw into my reply the serenity of his spirit. I 
have little occasion, however, in the present case, 
to dread his talents or lose my temper ; for if 
I understand the reviewer, though his essay 



66 CALVirsISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



bears upon it, if not the " rugged," at least the 
decided " aspect of controversy" with my ser- 
mon, he is nevertheless in principle an Armi- 
nian. I allude now more especially to his views 
of predestination. On election there is evident- 
ly a greater difference between us ; and yet it 
strikes me when a man discards Calvinian pre- 
destination, consistency would require that the 
peculiarities of Calvinian election should be dis- 
carded also. At any rate, as the settling of the 
former question will have a very strong bearing 
upon the other, I shall confine myself in this 
article to predestination. I am not certain that 
I understand the reviewer ; but his candour 
authorizes me to believe that he will explain 
himself frankly, and correct me if I misunder- 
stand him. If we are agreed on this point we 
ought to know it, and give over the controversy. 
If we are not, let us know the precise ground of 
difference. And in either case we shall be 
the better prepared to pursue the question of 
election. 

The question in dispute is simply this : What 
relation is there between the decrees or pur- 
poses of God and the responsible acts of man? 
The Arminian views on this question, as I 
understand them, are these: God, as a Sove- 
reign, in deciding upon his works, had a right 
to determine on such a system as pleased him ; 
but, being infinitely wise and good, he would of 
course choose, in the contemplation of all possi- 
ble systems, to create such a one as, all things 
considered, would bring the most glory to him- 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 67 

self, and the greatest good to the universe. In 
infinite wisdom he decided that such a system 
would be a moral government, consisting of him- 
self, as the supreme and rightful Governor, and 
of intelligent subjects, having full and unre- 
strained power to obey or disobey the mandates 
of their Sovereign. He foresaw that one of the 
unavoidable incidents of such a government 
would be the possible existence of moral evil ; 
and, in glancing through the proposed system, 
he foresaw that moral evil would certainly exist, 
involving innumerable multitudes in its ruinous 
consequences. He did not approve of the evil ; 
he did not decree that it should exist : but still 
evil was a remote result of a decree of his : for 
although he foresaw that if he made such free 
agents, and governed them in the manner pro- 
posed, they would certainly sin, yet he deter- 
mined, notwithstanding this certainty, to make 
these agents and govern them as proposed. He 
determined, however, that they should be under 
no necessity of sinning, either by his decree, or 
by the circumstances in which they should be 
placed ; but if they sinned, it should be their 
own free choice. As he foresaw they would 
sin, he also determined upon the plan he would 
pursue in reference to them as sinners, and ar- 
ranged, in the counsels of his own infinite mind, 
the extended concatenation of causes and effects, 
so as to make the " wrath of man praise him," 
and deduce the greatest possible good from the 
best possible system. Such, it is believed, is 
Arminianism — such is Methodism — such is the 



68 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



doctrine of the sermon — and such are the dic- 
tates of the Bible and of sound philosophy. 

The next question is, What is the doctrine of 
the reviewer ? He shall speak for himself. On 
page 612, of the review, he asks the question, 
"But in what sense are we to understand the po- 
sition that he (God) purposes the existence of 
sin?" He proceeds to answer: " Not necessa- 
rily, in the sense of his preferring its existence in 
his kingdom to its nonexistence, &c. In affirm- 
ing the doctrine of predestination we affirm no 
more necessarily than that God, with the know- 
ledge that these beings would sin in despite of 
the best measures of providence and govern- 
ment he could take, purposed to create them 
and pursue those measures, not for the sake of 
their sin, but for the good which he nevertheless 
saw it was possible to secure in his moral king- 
dom. This would be a purpose with respect to 
the existence of sin, a purpose to permit its exist- 
ence, rather than to have no moral system." — 
Again, page 613 : "Nothing more (touching free 
agency) is implied in the purpose spoken of than a 
certainty foreseen of God, that if he creates and 
upholds that being, and pursues wise and good 
measures of providence, he (the being) will at a 
given time, fully choose in a given way." In 
page 612 he says, " God confers on them (man- 
kind) in their creation the powers of free agen- 
C}r, and he uses no influence in his providence or 
government to procure their sin." Page 614, 
" He (God) most obviously has no will opposed 
to his law, though with a foresight of their con- 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 69 

duct he should purpose to permit their sin, rather 
than dispense with the existence of a moral 
kingdom." But it is useless to multiply quota- 
tions. Suffice it to say that the reviewer's whole 
ground of defence against the arguments of the 
sermon, on the question of predestination, is 
solely this Arminian explanation of the doctrine 
of predestination. He acknowledges, nay bold- 
ly asserts, in a strain " of rugged controversy" 
with his brethren who may differ from this view 
of the subject, that there is no other explanation 
by which the arguments of the sermon can be 
avoided — that is, as I understand it, the only way 
to avoid the arguments against the doctrine of 
Calvinian predestination is to give it up, and as- 
sume the Arminian sentiment on this subject. 
If the reviewer does not mean this, he will of 
course explain himself fully, and point out the 
precise difference between his views and those 
of the Arminians. If, on this subject, the re- 
viewer is an Arminian, he has too much can- 
dor, 1 trust, not to acknowledge it frankly, and 
too much moral courage to be afraid of the 
name. If he is not, the cause of truth and his 
own consistency of character imperiously de- 
mand an explanation. Until this point, there- 
fore, is decided, farther arguments on the merits 
of the question in which we are supposed to be 
at issue, are useless. 

I am not, however, quite ready to dismiss the 
review. I stated at the commencement it was 
difficult to pursue this controversy without al- 
luding to the manner in which it had been con- 



70 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



ducted on the part of our Calvinistic brethren ; 
but that there was less ground for objection in 
this article in the Spectator than in most others. 
There are some things in this article, however, 
that I cannot justify. I will state them frankly, 
though I trust in Christian friendship. I can- 
not approve of the reviewer's use of terms : 
though, to my understanding, he has evidently 
given the doctrine of predestination not merely 
a new dress, but a new character, yet he more 
than intimates that it is the old doctrine with 
only a new method of explanation ; and serious- 
ly and repeatedly complains of the author of the 
sermon for " confounding the fact of God's fore- 
ordaining the voluntary actions of men with this 
or any other solution of that fact or theory as to 
the mode in which it comes to pass." And so 
confident is the reviewer that he still believes in 
the fact of predestination, in the old Calvinistic 
sense, that in stating his sentiments on this sub- 
ject he uses the same forms of expression which 
Calvinists have used, when their meaning was as 
distant from his as the two poles from each 
other. He tells us, for instance, that " God de- 
termined that the events which take place should 
take place in the very manner in which they do, 
and for the very ends." Now if the writer mean 
what the words naturally imply, then he believes 
that, in the case of a finally impenitent sinner, 
God predetermined that all his sins should take 
place in the manner they did, and for the very 
end that he might be damned ! Again he tells 
us, " God, in his eternal purpose, has predeter« 



GALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



71 



mined all events." And, quoting from the As- 
sembly's Catechism, " God, from all eternity, did 
freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever 
comes to pass," he tells us that this expresses 
essentially the views entertained by the orthodox 
Congregationalists of New-England, among 
whom, I suppose of course, he would include 
himself. Now, after what I have said of 
the reviewer's Arminianism, I doubt not but 
some of my readers will be startled at these 
quotations, and be ready to accuse me of great 
credulity in the judgment I have formed of the 
writer's sentiments. I shall exculpate myself, 
however, by saying, in the first place, that if 
there is any contradiction in the writer's senti- 
ments or language, it is not my fault, but his ; 
and if I should attempt to reconcile them, per- 
haps the reviewer would not thank me for my 
officiousness. Beside, after what has been said, 
I feel safer in understanding the reviewer in an 
Jlrminian sense, because he and some others take 
it very ill of me that I have represented them as 
Calvinists. But, in fairness to the reviewer, it 
is presumed that he will not consider himself 
justly chargeable with contradiction. He has 
used these old terms, it is true, and thus has sub- 
scribed to the Calvinistic creed as positively as 
the staunchest Calvinist ; but then, let it be un- 
derstood, he has explained that creed, and defined 
the terms, and protests against being held re- 
sponsible for any other construction than his own. 
Hence by God's predetermining that sin shoidd 
take place, in the very manner, and for the very 



12 CALVTNISTIC COOTROYERSY. 

ends it does — by God's foreordaining whatsoever 
comes to pass — he only means that God foresaw 
that sin would certainly take place, and prede- 
termined that he would not hinder it, either by 
refraining from creating moral agents, or by 
throwing a restraint upon them that would de- 
stroy their free agency. In short, that he would 
submit to it as an evil unavoidably incident to the 
best possible system, after doing all that he 
wisely could to prevent it ! This is foreordain- 
ing sin ! t This is 'predetermining that it should 
he ! I ! I cannot but express my deepest regret 
that a gentleman of the reviewer's standing and 
learning should lend his aid and give his sanc- 
tion to such a perversion of language — to such 
a confusion of tongues. We do not complain 
of the doctrine contained in the explanation ; 
but we protest, in the name of all that is pure 
in language, in the name of all that is important 
in the sentiments conveyed by language, against 
such an abuse of terms. Alas for us ! When 
will the watchmen see eye to eye ! when will 
the Church be at peace! while our spiritual 
guides, our doctors in divinity, pursue this 
course ? By what authority will the reviewer 
support this definition ? Do the words predes- 
tinate, or foreordain, or decree mean, in common 
language, or even in their radical and critical de- 
finition, nothing more than to permit — not abso- 
lutely to hinder — to submit to as an unavoidable 
but offensive evil ? The reviewer certainly will 
not pretend this. Much less do they mean this 
when used in a magisterial or authoritative 



CALYINISTIC COXTKOTEESY. 73 



sense, to express the mind and will of a superior 
or governor toward an inferior or a subject. — 
What is the decree of a king ? What is the 
ordinance of a senate ? What is the official 
determination of a legislative body 1 Let com- 
mon sense and common usage answer the ques- 
tion. Not a man probably can be found, from 
the philosopher to the peasant, who would say 
these words would bear the explanation of the 
reviewer. Yet it is in this official and authori- 
tative sense that theologians, and our reviewer 
among them, use these terms. The Assem- 
bly's Catechism, as quoted by himself, says, 
" God, from ail eternity, did, by the most wise 
and holy counsel of his own will, freely and 
unchangeably ordain" <kc. Now it would be a 
gross insult to common sense to say of such lan- 
guage as this, in the mouth of an earthly po- 
tentate, that the sovereign meant by this nothing 
more than that he permitted the existence of cer- 
tain unavoidable, and in themselves, highly offen- 
sive evils in his kingdom, because he could not 
remove them without embarrassing the essential 
operations of his government. There is not, 
probably, a clearer case in the whole range of 
philology. 

But the use of these terms by those who be- 
lieve as I understand the reviewer to believe, is 
the more unjustifiable, because they are used by 
most Calvinistic authors in a different sense.— 
Why, then, should the reviewer, believing as he 
does, continue to use them in the symbols of 
his faith ? Different persons might give differ* 



74 



CALVIXISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



ent answers to such a question. For one, I 
would prefer he should answer it himself. 

I cannot approve of the reviewer's censures 
upon my manner of treating the doctrine of pre- 
destination. He accuses me of confounding the 
doctrine itself, with modes of explanation. He 
says they are perfectly distinct ; and though 
some may have been unfortunate in their modes 
of explanation, and though he acknowledges 
my arguments bear against such, yet the fact 
of the doctrine itself is not thereby affected. 
His mode of explanation, for example, he thinks 
untouched by the arguments of the sermon. 
But his mode of explanation, as we have seen 
turns the doctrine into Arminianism. And it 
would, perhaps, be no difficult matter to show, 
that any explanation of the doctrine, short of 
doing it away, would be exposed to all the 
weight of the arguments urged in the sermon. 
But the sermon was never written to oppose 
those who hold to the decrees of God in an Ar- 
minian sense. Why then does the reviewer 
complain of the sermon ? Why does he so 

deeply regret" that the author of the sermon 
"should come before the public with an attack 
on the faith of a large part of the Christian 
community, conducted in a way so obviously 
erroneous and unjust t" The sermon was 
against Calvinism, not Arminianism. It is true, 
the reviewer may say, the sermon alludes, in 
some parts, to the Calvinism of New-England, 
and therefore he felt himself implicated. But 
lie certainly was not, unless he is a New-Eng- 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY* 75 

land Calvinist — unless he believes that " God 
foreordains whatsoever comes to pass," in the 
proper sense of those terms. Indeed, it seems 
that Calvinism, in its proper character, is as 
obnoxious to the reviewer, as to the author of 
the sermon ; and the former seems to have taken 
this opportunity to show the nakedness of the 
system, and bring into notice a better doctrine. 
If so, is it safe that the reviewer should still 
accord to them their old symbols of faith ? And 
is it just, that the author of the sermon should 
be held the defendant on the record, when the 
execution is issued against Calvinism itself? In 
answer to the former question, I would say, it is 
utterly unsafe, and never will be approved of, I 
believe, by Arminians. With respect to the lat- 
ter question, if it is safer to attack Calvinism in 
this indirect way, I will not object, though it 
may seem at present to my disadvantage. But 
I cannot see that it would be safer — an open 
bold front always ends best. What if it should 
subject the reviewer, and the theological doctors 
in New-Haven generally, to the charge of here- 
sy ? Still they ought not to shrink from their 
responsibilities — they occupy a commanding in- 
fluence among the Churches and over the can- 
didates of their theological school, and that influ- 
ence should be openly and decidedly directed to 
discountenance error. They should remove it, 
root and branch. Especially should they dis- 
card those old symbols of faith, which are not 
only in themselves, in their true and proper 
meaning, a reflection upon the clerical character, 



76 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

and a black spot upon an otherwise orthodox 
creed, but are also especially obnoxious, because 
they are the very articles which the great body 
of the Calvinists have maintained, in a sense 
widely different from that of the reviewer. At 
the head of these stands Calvin, the author of the 
system, in the Protestant Church. Calvin, who 
says, " I will not scruple to own that the will of 
God lays a necessity on all things, and that 
every thing he wills necessarily comes to pass." 
"Adam fell, not only by the permission, but also 
by the appointment of God. He not only fore- 
saw that Adam would fall, but also ordained 
that he should." " The devil and wicked men 
are so held in on every side, with the hand of 
God, that they cannot conceive or contrive or 
execute any mischief, any farther than God him- 
self doth not permit only, but command — nor are 
they held in fetters, but compelled also, as with a 
bridle, to perform obedience to those commands." 
Calvin, it seems, was far from thinking that ap- 
pointment only meant permission, or that to or- 
dain only meant certainty foreseen. In this he 
was correct : in this he has been followed by a 
host of writers dow r n to the present day, and copied 
in numerous ecclesiastical symbols, in different 
parts of Christendom ; and does not the re- 
viewer know that these terms are understood by 
Hopkins and Emmons, and all the Calvinists of 
that school, in a sense widely different from his 
explanation, and in a sense, too, much more in 
accordance with the proper meaning of the 
terms ? Does he not know that a great majo- 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 77 

rity of the Calvinists of the United States, and 
perhaps in New-England, even understand these 
terms, as indeed they ought to be understood, 
when used in reference to sin, as expressing a 
preference of sin, in that part of the Divine 
plan where sin occurs, to holiness in its stead ? 
Indeed, as I understand the reviewer, from the 
days of John Calvin down to the present hour, 
there is, on this point, between the great body 
of Calvinists and himself, almost no likeness, 
except in the use of words. Theirs is one doc- 
trine — his another. Why, then, does he oppose 
the opposers of Calvinism, and thus keep error 
in countenance ? Especially, why does he hail 
from that party, and hoist their signals, and then, 
after seeming to get the victory, by espousing 
the very cause of the assailed, encourage the 
Calvinists to triumph, as if their cause had been 
successful ? Is this justice to the author of the 
sermon ? Is it the best way to promote truth ? 
But I forbear. The reviewer's subsequent 
explanations may remove these difficulties. At 
! any rate, the cause of truth will doubtless ad- 
vance. The appearance of this review has 
given additional strength to the sentiment, Cal- 
vinism " is waxing old, and is ready to vanish 
away." The dogma that " God has predetermined 
all events, and elected (in a Calvinistic sense) 
out of our guilty world all who shall be heirs of sal- 
vation," withers at the touch of advancing truth, 
and is fast losing credit in the Christian Church. 

Since writing the above, I have seen an in- 
quiry of a correspondent in one of the Calvinis- 



78 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

tic papers, in these words, " Why do our Calvin, 
istic writers retain the words which seem so sadly 
to perplex our Arminian brethren, when it is 
certain that we do not attach the signification to 
them which they always pretend?" and then in- 
stances in the word "foreordain." The editor, 
in reply, gives as a reason for using these 
words, that they are Scriptural ; and seems to 
deem it necessary that they should persist in 
this use until we submit. This reply of the edi- 
tor reminded me of a remark of Mr. Tyler, in 
his sermon already alluded to : " The Calvinist 
contends that God resolved, from eternity, to 
permit all the sins and miseries which were to 
take place ; and this he calls, in the language 
of the Bible, foreordination." Now, not to stop 
here, to show that no true Calvinist would ever 
call foreordination and permission the same thing, 
for Calvin has, as we have seen, clearly distin- 
guished the two words from each other, I beg 
the privilege of adding a thought or two on this 
idea of Scripture authority for the use of these 
terms. For if it is only because the Scriptures 
use these words in this sense, that they persist 
in using them, I think we may easily settle this 
question. Let it be shown that the Scriptures 
use " foreordination," or " predestination," in the 
sense of mere permission — not absolutely hinder- 
ing. Again : let one passage be shown in which 
it is said, God " predestinates" all things, or 
" foreordains" whatsoever comes to pass. If 
this cannot be done, how futile, how more than 
absurd is it, to talk about using these words* 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 79 



because the Scriptures use them ! To use 
Scripture words out of the Scripture sense, and 
then appeal to Scripture to sanction this use, is 
as sad a perversion of the Scriptures as it is of 
logic. Indeed, to give such a meaning to the 
word predestinate, is at once to take away the 
principal scriptures quoted by the reviewer, and 
others, to prove Calvinistic election. See Eph. 
i, 5 ; ii, 10 ; Rom. viii, 29. Does predestina- 
tion in these passages mean merely to permit, or 
not to hinder ? and do these passages teach a 
personal election to eternal life ? Is this all the 
Calvinists mean by the election of sovereign 
grace, not of man, nor of the will of man, but of 
God 1 Alas ! for the elect ! If man does not 
elect himself, and God only predestinates, that is, 
permits — does not hinder his election ; who, we 
ask, will elect him? How does error destroy 
itself! These gentlemen may take which 
ground they please ; they may either acknow- 
ledge that Bible predestination means an efficient 
purpose of God to accomplish an object, and 
then meet the sermon on the issue there pro- 
posed ; or they may interpret these words as 
the reviewer has, and then give up those pas- 
sages which they consider their strong hold, in 
favour of Calvinian election. In either case 
their system must suffer serious loss. Nothing 
could be more unfortunate, I think, than this 
appeal to the Bible to sanction such an abuse 
of terms. As to the word foreordain, I do not 
recollect that it occurs in our translation. Jude 
4, has " before of old ordained," &c ? but it is in 



80 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

the original very different from the word ren. 
dered predestinate. The allusion is to charac- 
ters that were proscribed for their sins, and de- 
signated for deserved punishment. The ori- 
ginal for predestinate, Il£oo£i£w, is used in only 
one place, so far as I can find, with any direct 
reference to a sinful act, Acts iv, 28. This 
passage is k quoted by the reviewer. But the 
determination here spoken of, he himself informs 
us, relates to " the purpose of God to make an 
atonement for the sin of the world, by means of 
the death of Jesus Christ." Hence the prede- 
termination of God, in this instance, probably 
refers to the work of atonement, without includ- 
ing therein any special decree in respect to the 
means of the suffering. Christ could have suf- 
fered, even unto death, in the garden without any 
human means. But inasmuch as these men had 
the murderous purpose, God " chose to leave 
Christ to their power," &c, therefore decreed, 
the atonement, but permitted the means. This 
seems to be the most rational construction. But 
whatever Calvinists may think of this passage, 
the Scriptural use of the word is clearly on the 
side of its proper meaning — an authoritative 
ordinance that the thing predestinated shall be. 

I will avail myself of this opportunity to correct 
one or two errors of the reviewer, respecting 
the sentiment of the sermon, which had escaped 
my notice. He says, my " view of predestina- 
tion is a determination of God to produce a 
given result by his oim immediate and efficient 
energy." This is a mistake. I said nothing 



CALVIXISTIC CONTROVERSY. 81 

about immediate energy ; this is an essential 
misrepresentation of the sermon. Again: "On 
Dr. Fisk's principle, it is impossible for God to 
use the voluntary agency of any creature, to 
accomplish any valuable end in his kingdom, 
and yet leave that creature accountable for his 
conduct." This is so manifestly incorrect and 
unjust, that I am sure I need only call the at- 
tention of the reviewer to it a second time, to 
secure a correction from himself. 



NUMBER II. 

A PROPOSITION TO CALVINISTS. 

The communication below contains a propo- 
sition from Dr. W. Fisk, which, however much 
we dislike theological controversies, we believe 
is appropriate and interesting at this time. Such 
a discussion, under such arrangements, will give 
the merits of the controversy to both sides ; and 
will, at least, convince all of one truth — that the 
Methodist Episcopal Church seeks not conceal- 
ment from the world or her members, as 
charged by her adversaries. But it will de- 
velope a still more important truth, and that is, 
what are the settled and definite opinions of the 
old or the new school in the Calvinistic 
Churches. It is known to all the world, that 
there is great difficulty in ascertaining what are 
the theological opinions of those ancient Churches 
of the land. They seem to be as far apart from 
each other as they are from Arminianism ; and 
6 



82 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



their replies and rejoinders to each other are as 
severe as if directed against us. The discussion 
must be interesting and profitable, carried on 
by two such persons as Dr. Fisk and his oppo- 
nent, and under the steady supervision, as to 
temper and manner, of third parties as pro- 
posed. — Eds. 

I have just received a pamphlet of about 
forty-eight pages, containing a series of letters, 
in answer to my sermon on predestination and 
election. These letters are written by the Rev. 
David Metcalf, of Lebanon, Connecticut, and 
purport to be an answer, not only to the doctrinal 
part of the sermon, but to the " charges," as 
the writer is pleased to call them, contained in 
the sermon, and published afterward in a specific 
form, first in the Connecticut Observer, and 
then in the Christian Advocate and Journal. 

It will be recollected by your readers, that I 
pledged myself to vindicate my statements 
against any responsible person, who, with his 
own proper signature, would come forward and 
deny them : or if I failed to support them, I 
would retract what I had written. This pledge 
Mr. Metcalf calls upon me to redeem ; not 
indeed by bringing forward my proofs, or by 
making a reply ; but, having thrown in his plea, 
he supposes that the cause is decided, and has 
himself made up the judgment, and issued the 
execution, and forthwith comes forward, and 
claims his damage. His words are — " Of the 
author of the sermon we claim a public ac- 



CALVIXISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



83 



knowledgment of his errors, and make justice 
and equity the ground of our claim." Again, 
" If Dr. F. makes no public retraction from the 
ground taken in his sermon — if after he shall 
receive these letters, [! !] remembering also 
what is said in the Christian Spectator's review 
of his sermon, he shall allow another copy of it 
to be printed, I think he will find it difficult to 
convince any intelligent candid man, that he is 
not guilty of breaking the ninth commandment,' 5 
dec. The intelligent reader, who has studied 
human nature, will know how to make suitable 
allowances for the dogmatical and premature 
decisions, and high claims contained in the 
foregoing extracts. It is not an uncommon 
thing, that a zealous advocate succeeds in 
convincing himself of the truth of his cause ; 
but utterly fails with respect to all others. I do 
not say, that this writer will not gain his argu- 
ment ; but it requires more " foreknowledge" 
than I am disposed to accord to him, to affirm 
this as a "certainty." I demur against this 
hasty manner of making up the judgment. I 
wish to be heard in defence of my statements, 
and have objections also to bring against his 
statements, and supposed proofs and argu- 
ments. 

In the first place, I object to him, that he has 
not come out and joined issue specifically and 
directly on any one of my " charges," but talks 
for most part in general terms, about the 
unfairness, injustice, and misrepresentations of 
the sermon. This circumstance would, of 



84 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

itself, free me from any obligation to notice 
these letters, on the ground of my pledge in the 
Observer. But yet, as I feel the most perfect 
readiness to discuss this subject, and as I hope 
the cause of righteousness may be served 
thereby, I will willingly proceed in this contro- 
versy, both as to doctrine and policy, provided 
we can secure some suitable public medium, 
through which to prosecute the discussion. And 
on this point Mr. M. complains bitterly of the 
former editors of the Advocate and Journal — 
for he had applied, it seems, for the privilege of 
having his letters inserted in that paper, and 
was refused, on the ground that " the sermon 
was not published in the Advocate, and therefore 
justice did not require that its answer should 
be." Now, since these letters are professedly 
an answer to the whole sermon, the editors, I 
think, were perfectly consistent with their former 
statements, in refusing to publish them. If Mr. 
M. had confined himself to the charges in the 
Observer, the editors would undoubtedly have 
given the subject a place in the columns of the 
Advocate : as it was, however, I think the 
charge of injustice and unfairness made against 
the editors by Mr. M. is entirely gratuitous and 
unjustifiable. If it was expected to produce an 
effect on the public, by such a complaint, I think 
such an expectation will be disappointed in all 
places where the subject is understood. And 
that this was the expectation appears evident 
from another charge against Methodist preach- 
ers, in the following words : — " It is supposed to 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 85 



be the common sentiment, if not ' the common 
talk in our land,' that the Methodist preachers 
have a strong aversion against their hearers 
reading our writings. The reason of this, in 
part, is supposed to be, that they choose to 
have their people receive all their knowledge of 
our creed from their statements of it, instead 
of ours ; lest they should be convinced, by our 
arguments, of the truth of our belief." Now 
this charge we wholly and positively deny, and 
challenge the writer for the proofs of what we 
know to be, not only an ungenerous, but an 
unjust allegation. Nothing can be farther from 
the whole genius of Methodism than this. 
Does not the reverend gentleman know, that 
a great portion of our members in New England 
are those who were once members of Calvin- 
istic congregations ? Does he not know that 
they were trained up in these doctrines from 
their infancy, and have heard them explained 
and defended from their earliest recollections? 
Does he not know that Methodism has made 
its way against the impressions of the nursery, 
the catechetical instruction of the priest and the 
school master — the influence of the pulpit and 
the press, and in maturer age against the still 
stronger influence of academies and colleges'! 
Does he not know, also, that all this has been 
done in this generation ] And shall we now be 
told that Methodists examine but one side of 
the question ? How astonishing such a charge, 
from a man who can make any pretension tc 
a knowledge of ecclesiastical matters in ouj 



86 



CALVIXISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



country ! Does not this writer know, also, that 
the editors of the Advocate, and others, have 
called loudly, and almost continually, for infor- 
mation upon this subject, that we might know 
what the Calvinistic standards are, and ascer- 
tain what Calvinism is ? and shall we now be 
told, that Methodists are ignorant of the Cal- 
vinistic faith, and, what is worse, the preachers 
strive to keep them in ignorance, and that with 
the base purpose of keeping them from a con- 
viction of the truth ! We say, if Calvinism is 
essentially what it was from five to thirty years 
ago, we know its character as well as we ever 
can know it. If we do not understand it now, 
it is either because we have not natural ability 
to understand it, (and therefore. Calvinism itself 
being judge, w r e are not criminal,) or it is be- 
cause the teachers of Calvinism have not had 
natural ability to make it plain. But if Cal- 
vinism is not essentially what it was, we ask 
what it now is ? If it is changed in the hands 
of its supporters, how much has it changed ? 
Is it Calvinism still, or has it lost its identity ? 
In what does the identity of Calvinism consist ? 
Shall we take the Rev. Mr. Metcalf 's answer 
to these questions ? Shall we take the Christian 
Spectator's answers? Mr. M. appears fully to 
agree with the Spectator, for he makes frequent 
reference to it, with great apparent approbation. 
And yet two numbers of this periodical have 
been issued since my reply to the review of my 
sermon in that work, in which reply I stated my 
understanding of the reviewer's doctrine of 



CALVmSTIC CONTROVERSY. 



87 



predestination, and requested to be informed if 
I was incorrect ; and neither my reply nor my 
request has been noticed. And yet, let it be 
understood, that in the last number there is a 
very laboured article, to show that Dr. Taylor 
does not differ essentially from the orthodox 
Calvinistic faith heretofore received. 

It is also known, that though Drs. Woods, 
Griffin, Tyler, Green, and various others, come 
out and charge a portion of their brethren with 
a serious and dangerous dereliction from the 
Calvinistic faith, yet the accused, in their turn, 
strenuously maintain that they preserve the old 
landmarks unremoved, and the essential prin- 
ciples of Calvinism unimpaired ; and that it is 
a calumnious charge to say they have departed 
from the faith of the party. 

How shall we judge in this matter 1 If we 
think, from our understanding of their writings, 
that some of them have changed their views, 
and we ask them if they have, they are silent. 
If their brethren charge them with changing, 
they deny it ; and, standing up before the world 
and before the Churches, and before their God, 
pronounce deliberately and emphatically, the 
old symbols of faith, as a test oath to prove 
their orthodoxy. Should we doubt their re- 
peated asseverations 1 Mr. M., or somebody 
else, might write another pamphlet to screw- us 
into repentance and confession, for bearing false 
witness against our neighbour. But if we hold 
them to the old doctrine, which we have had a 
good opportunity of learning, from our youth 



88 OALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

up, we are accused of misrepresentation, and 
of bearing false witness. None but the advo- 
cates of the New-Haven divinity have, to my 
knowledge, taken a public stand against my 
sermon ; and tliey oppose it because they say it 
is a misrepresentation of their doctrine. 

This, therefore, seems to us to be the state of 
the case with respect to these gentlemen — We 
make a representation of Calvinism as we have 
found it, and have heretofore understood it — 
they object, because this is not their belief, and 
therefore we break the ninth commandment ! 
Their own brethren charge them with a de- 
parture from the old doctrines, and they deny 
it ! and charge them in turn with bearing false 
witness ! In the midst of our perplexity on 
this subject, while we are looking every way for 
light, up comes Mr. M. and tells us, we are 
unwilling our people should know what Cat- 
vinists believe ! ! Is this generous, or just 1 
We repel the charge, and demand proof* And 
in the mean time, as a farther proof that the 
charge is unfounded, I will, Messrs. Editors, 
with your consent and approbation, make a 
proposition to Mr. Metcalf. It is certainly de- 
sirable, that both Calvinists and Methodists 
should hear both sides. Mr. M. seems very 
desirous to enlighten the Methodists. This is 
very well. But we also wish to enlighten the 
Calvinists. To accomplish this, the discussion 
on both sides should be put into the hands of the 
people on both sides. If, then, some reputable 
and extensively circulated Calvinistic periodical 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 89 

will publish my sermon, and the discussion 
which has arisen, or may arise out of it, on 
both sides, the Christian Advocate and Journal 
will publish Mr. M.'s letters and the discussions 
which shall follow ; provided always, that it 
shall be submitted to the respective editors, 
whether the pieces are written in respectful and 
becoming style and language ; and provided 
also, that the Calvinistic editor shall, by con- 
senting to this arrangement, be considered as 
thereby acknowledging, that Mr. Metcalf is a 
suitable man to manage the controversy in be- 
half of the Calvinists, and that you, Messrs. 
Editors, by consenting to the arrangement, will 
thereby consent that you are willing to trust 
the controversy in my hands, to be managed in 
behalf of the Methodists. To give an opportu- 
nity for the Calvinistic periodical to be prepared, 
I shall wait a reasonable time, when, if the offer 
is not complied with, I shall want the privilege, 
perhaps, of occupying the columns of the 
Advocate, by the insertion of a few numbers 
touching the present Calvinistic controversy, 
both as relates to their own differences, and 
also as relates to the general question between 
them and us. 



NUMBER III. 

INDEFINITE NESS OF CALVINISM. 

The readers of the Christian Advocate and 
Journal will recollect the proposition, made to 



90 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

the Rev. David Metcalf, in the 8th No. of the 
present volume, on the subject of his review of 
my sermon. This proposition has not been 
complied with on the part of Mr. M., and 
according to the following extract from the 
New-York Evangelist, no compliance can be 
expected : — 

" We have seen," says the editor of the Evan- 
gelist, " in the Advocate, since Mr. Metcalf 's 
work was published, a letter from Dr. F., in 
which he shows his desire that the discussion 
shall still go forward. There is one condition 
he exacts, however, which we think impracti- 
cable. It is, that some person should be desig- 
nated, by a sort of common suffrage, as the 
champion of Calvinism. Now the truth is, 
Calvinists, as a class, are rather remarkable for 
thinking for themselves ; and of course, while 
there are great principles on which, as a class, 
they all agree, there are many things which 
will be held or stated differently, by different 
minds. Consequently, we can, each of us, 
defend ourselves, and defend Calvinists as a 
class ; notwithstanding, each one may think his 
fellow holds some errors, and therefore, in his 
contest with Calvinism, Dr. F. must assume to 
himself the responsibility of selecting those 
doctrinal points and modes of statement which 
distinguish Calvinists as a class. And when he 
has found these principles, we hope he will 
either confute or embrace them." 

I have copied the above for the farther notice 
of the public, not only as a remarkable para- 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 91 

graph in itself, but also as having an important 
bearing on the present controversy. There are 
several things in it worthy of special notice. 

In the first place we see, if other editors 
think with this one, and that they do, we are left 
to infer from their not offering their periodicals 
for the controversy, there is no hope that my 
proposition will be accepted. We then have 
the reason — because there is one impracticable 
condition. But why impracticable? The edi- 
tor tells us, a Dr. F. exacts that some person 
should be designated by a sort of common 
suffrage to be the champion of Calvinism." I 
cannot believe the editor means to misrepresent 
me ; and yet he has done it. My words are, 
"Provided that the Calvinistic editor shall, by 
consenting to this arrangement, be considered as 
thereby acknowledging that Mr. Metcalf is a 
suitable man to manage the controversy on the 
part of the Calvinists." Here is nothing said 
about a " sort of common suffrage." In case 
of compliance by Mr. Leavitt, or any other 
editor, the only vote to be polled and counted 
would be his own. Not a very extensive 
suffrage this ! And if Mr. L. thinks the condi- 
tion impracticable, it must be owing to moral 
inability existing in his own mind, growing out 
of the belief that Mr. Metcalf is not a suitable 
person to manage this controversy. Hence it is 
well I took the precaution I did ; for Mr. M. is 
a stranger to me ; and I do not wish to engage 
in a controversy on this subject with any man 
who is not, by his class, considered responsible. 



92 calvixistic controversy. 

Perhaps Mr. Leavitt knows of some one, who 
would be suitable, in his judgment, and who 
would accept of the offer ; or perhaps he him- 
self would be willing to engage in the discussion. 
I do not wish to confine it to Mr. M. ; nor do I 
wish to be considered in the light of a general 
challenger who is seeking an adventure. The 
subject is an important one, and I am willing to 
discuss it with any candid responsible man. 
We were most unjustly, as I believed, accused 
of keeping our people in ignorance of Calvinism, 
and of preventing them from reading on the 
other side, for the base purpose of preventing 
them from being convinced of the truth. To 
render the subject fair and equal, therefore, and 
to wipe off this aspersion, I made the proposal ; 
and if Mr. M. is not a suitable man, let some 
other be found. 

But we are informed farther in this paragraph, 
that one great difficulty in complying with my 
condition is, that "Calvinists, as a class, are 
remarkable for thinking for themselves," &c. 
If the editor designs to say, as the natural con- 
struction would imply, that the whole class are 
remarkable, in their character as Calvinists, 
for thinking and believing differently and inde- 
pendently of each other, then his proposition is 
a contradiction. They, as a class, are remark- 
able for not being a class at all, having no 
properties or qualities in common ! His argu- 
ment also would require this construction, 
because he is showing why no one could be the 
proper champion of the class, for the reason 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 93 

that, as a class, they did not think alike. If 
Calvinism be a general term, it includes, in its 
extension, all those individuals or sub-classes of 
individuals, and only those, that hold certain 
doctrines in common, and it embraces all those 
doctrines, and only those that are held in com- 
mon by the class. If, therefore, there is any 
such class, then most certainly they think alike 
in all those things that constitute them a class ; 
and by consequence, any one of the number, 
otherwise competent, would be qualified to 
represent and defend the class as such, however 
much he might differ from many of " his fellows," 
in other things. If, therefore, there is any force 
in the argument, that it is impracticable for any 
one of the number bearing the name, to become 
the champion of the class as such, because they 
differ so among themselves, it must arise from 
the fact, that there are no " great principles" 
held in common among them, and, of course, 
there is no class. All the writer says afterward, 
therefore, about " great principles in which they 
all agree," is mere verbage, signifying nothing. 
For if we give it any meaning, it would be a 
contradiction of what he had stated before, and 
a complete nullification of the only argument 
adduced as a reason for not complying with my 
proposal. There is another reason why I think 
the above a fair view of this subject. In the 
same paragraph it is said, " Therefore, in his 
contest with Calvinism, Dr. F. must assume to 
himself the responsibility of selecting those 
doctrinal facts and modes of statement which 



94 CALVIXISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

distinguish Cahinists as a class." This is 
more unreasonable than the requisition of 
Nebuchadnezzar, when he commanded the wise 
men to make known the dream, as well as the 
interpretation. Would an intelligent and in- 
genuous man, such as we have a right to expect 
a religious editor to be, give such an answer, 
under such circumstances, if he could have told 
us what Calvinism is ? We have been accused, 
not by Mr. Metcalf only, but by Calvinists of 
the old school, and the new school, and all the 
schools, that we misrepresent them, that our 
preachers make it their business to misrepresent 
them, — that my sermon was a most scandalous 
misrepresentation, and that we studied to keep 
our people ignorant of what Calvinism is. When 
this is replied to, by entreating and conjuring 
those who bear the name of Calvinism, to tell 
us what it is ; and when we offer to discuss 
the subject, in their own periodicals, and give 
them an opportunity to discuss it in ours, and 
to inform our people, in their own way, on this 
doctrine — a death-like silence on the subject 
reigns throughout the w r hole coiys editorial ; 
until at length the Evangelist speaks, — We 
cannot comply ; we each and all, as a class, 
are so remarkable for thinking for ourselves, it 
is impracticable for any one to state and defend 
those doctrinal facts which distinguish us as a 
class, and therefore Dr. F. must assume to 
himself the responsibility of selecting them ! ! 
If Calvinists cannot agree in their own system, 
and cannot trust any of their fraternity to state 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 95 

and defend it in behalf of the class, why do they 
accuse us of wilful misrepresentations, in stating 
their system ? Why, in short, do they not begin 
to doubt whether, as a class, they have any 
system ? It is time for those who bear the name 
to know, and for the public to be distinctly in- 
formed, whether there is any thing real repre- 
sented by the term Calvinism ? If there is, 
then, whether the term is a common or a proper 
noun ? If it is a common noun, or a general 
name, then, what are the qualities, the properties, 
or doctrines designated by it? If no one can 
tell, — if those who " write about it, and about 
it," week after week, think it impracticable to 
define or describe those doctrines for the class, 
because they think so differently, of course it 
follows, if the name is retained, it is not a 
general, but a proper name, and belongs only to 
individuals. And though it has been assumed by 
many individuals, yet it has in each case an indi- 
vidual definition, which by no means enters into 
the definition of the term, as assumed by any other 
individual. And therefore it is as inconsistent to 
talk about the class of Calvinists, as it is to 
talk about the class of Johns or Joshuas, and as 
absurd to infer that two men are in any of their 
real characteristics alike, because each is called 
Calvinist, as to argue that the editor of the 
Evangelist and Joshua, the son of Nun, belonged 
; to the same class, because both are called 
Joshua. And this appears to me to be very 
nearly the true state of the case. Calvinism, 
as designating a class, has always been rather 



96 CALVEN'ISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

vague and unsettled in its definition, from the 
days of John Calvin himself. And this was one 
of the offensive objections brought against it in 
my sermon — an objection, however, that has 
been abundantly confirmed by recent events. 
As I wrote and published of another doctrine 
some years since, so I may say of Calvinism 
now. It is a proteus that changes its shape 
before one can describe it — an ignis fatuits, 
that changes its place before one can get his 
hand on it. And here I will stop to say, It will 
avail nothing for any one to take offence at this 
statement. It is not because I dislike men who 
are called Calvinists, that I thus speak. I know 
many of them personally, and esteem them 
highly, but of their doctrine, and their system, 
and their name, I must speak freely. And the 
best refutation they can give, is to come out if 
they can, and define and explain their system. 
I care not what shape it is presented in ; I am 
willing to meet it. If it puts on an Arminian 
character and dress, like the review in the 
Christian Spectator, I will only ask the privilege 
of baptizing it anew, and giving it a legitimate 
name. But as there seems now little hope of 
being permitted to meet it in the manner pro 
posed, it only remains that I proceed, according 
to promise, to "occupy the columns of the 
Advocate with a few numbers, touching the 
present Calvinistic controversy, both as relates 
to their own differences, and as relates to the 
general question between them and us." 

I cannot but think this an important mo- 



CALVIKISTIC CONTROVERSY. 9t 

ment to look into this subject. The signs of th6 
times indicate that the spirit of inquiry is abroad* 
and the old platforms are shaken. In this 
breaking up of erroneous systems, there is 
danger of extremes and extravagancies, more 
to be dreaded, perhaps, than the old errors 
themselves. Hence, the necessity for every 
man who has the truth to be on his guard 
against the currents, new and unprovided for, 
that may otherwise drive him from his safe 
moorings : and hence the necessity also, that he 
who has weighed anchor, and is afloat upon the 
unexplored sea of philosophic speculation, 
should be aware of the rocks and the quicksands 
on the opposite shore. An abler hand than 
mine is certainly needed on this occasion ; such 
a one I hope may be found. But in the mean 
time I will, as I am able, say a few things, with 
the sincere prayer that I and my readers may 
be led into all truth. 



NUMBER IV. 

SKETCH OF THE PAST CHANGES AND PRESENT 
STATE OF CALVINISM IN THIS COUNTRY. 

In the former No. it was seen that the indefi. 
niteness and mutability of the Calvinistic system 
had thrown a kind of irresponsibility around it, 
which renders this controversy, in many re- 
spects, extremely unsatisfactory. This might, 
at first, lead to the conclusion, that farther dis- 
cussion would be useless. On farther thought, 
7 



98 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



however, it may appear, that this very circum- 
stance will render the controversy both easier 
and more promising. This diversity of opinions 
has produced serious discussion among the 
predestinarians themselves, and has thrown the 
system open to public view, and driven its ad- 
vocates to a clearer statement of their respective 
opinions. The effervescence, in short, growing 
out of this excitement, has led to a more distinct 
analysis of the system, and of course to a clearer 
discovery of its constituent parts. Their argu- 
ments against each other, and the logical 
consequences which they urge against each 
other's views, are, in many cases, precisely the 
same that we should advance, and have often 
urged, in opposition to predestination. Much 
of the work, therefore, is prepared for us, and 
brought forward in a way to produce an effect 
among Calvinists themselves, where we could 
not be heard. 

To understand this subject however fully, and 
to follow out this discussion advantageously, it 
will be necessary to glance at the different 
changes and modifications of the Calvinistic 
system ; and to take a brief survey of the present 
state of the parties. 

The religious faith of our puritanical fathers 
is too well known to need a delineation here. 
This faith was at an early day defined and 
formally recognized, in the Cambridge and 
Say brook platforms. The first refinement (im- 
provement it can hardly be called) upon this 
ancient faith, was the metaphysical theory of 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 99 

Dr. Hopkins. The leading dogmas of this 
theory were, that God was the efficient cause of 
all moral action, holy and unholy ; and that 
holiness consisted in disinterested benevolence. 
Insomuch, that the answer to the question, 
" Are you willing to be damned ?" was deemed 
a very good criterion by which to judge of a 
religious experience. While the doctrine of 
predestination was in this manner going to seed y 
and bearing its legitimate fruits, in one direction, 
it received a remarkably plausible modification 
in another. The atonement, which was formerly 
limited to the elect, was now extended to all ; 
and the invitations of the Gospel, instead of 
being restrained, as before, to the world of the 
elect, were extended to the world of mankind. 
But as it would be useless to hold out invitations 
to those who could not accept of them, another 
refinement was introduced, and man was found 
to possess a natural ability to receive salvation, 
although he laboured under an invincible moral 
inability, which would for ever keep him from 
Christ, until drawn by irresistible grace. This 
discovery led to other refinements in language, 
so that a kind of technical nomenclature was 
formed, out of words in popular use, which 
words, by an accompanying glossary, were so 
defined as to correspond with the Calvinistic 
system. Thus, " You can repent if you will," 
meaning, according to the technical definition, 
" You can repent when God makes you willing," 
and so of the rest. 

This theory, sustained as it was by Dr. Hop^ 



100 



CALVISISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



kins. Dr. Emmons, and others, gained many 
proselytes, and seemed likely, at one time, to 
become the universal creed. Its metaphysical 
abstrusities and distinctions gave it an interest 
for the student ; and its plausible and common- 
sense terms gave it popularity with the people. 
In the mean time, however, several causes con- 
spired to introduce a great revolution in the 
religious sentiments of many, which, as it has 
had a very important influence in modifying 
Calvinism itself, I must here stop to notice ; I 
allude to the introduction of Unitarianism and 
Universalism. The proximate causes of the 
introduction of these sentiments were, among 
others, probably the following. The Antinomian 
features of old Calvinism had introduced into 
the Churches a heartless Christianity and a very 
lax discipline. It was natural, therefore, when 
religion had come, in point of fact, to consist 
chiefly in external performances, for its votaries 
to seek a theory that would accord with their 
practice. Unitarianism was precisely such a 
theory. It is also to be noticed, that the state 
of formality and spiritual death that prevailed, 
was greatly increased by the withering alliance 
which then existed between the Church and 
civil government. This revolution was un- 
doubtedly hastened also by the ultraism, on the 
one part, and the technical inconsistencies on 
the other, of the Hopkinsian theory. The 
elements had been long in motion, and at length 
they united in an array of numbers and influence 
that wrested the fairest portions of their eeclesi> 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 101 

astical domain from the orthodox Churches of 
Mass., and turned them over, together with 
the richly endowed university of the state, into 
the hands of the Unitarians. 

In Connecticut, Unitarianism, as that term is 
commonly understood among us, has not pre- 
vailed. There is, I believe, but one Unitarian 
pastor, properly so called, in the state. This 
sentiment, however, prevails very extensively in 
this and all the other New-England states, as 
well as in many other parts of the union, under 
the name of Universalism ; a sentiment which 
differs but little from Socinianism, and had its 
origin doubtless from the same source. About 
half a century since, a Calvinistic clergyman, 
as he was supposed to be to the day of his 
death, left a posthumous work, which was pub- 
lished, entitled, " Calvinism Improved." It was 
merely an extension of the doctrines of uncon- 
ditional election and irresistible grace to all 
instead of a part. From the premises, the 
reasoning seemed fair, and the conclusions 
legitimate. This made many converts. And 
this idea of universal salvation, when once it is 
embraced, can easily be moulded into any 
shape, provided its main feature is retained. — 
It has finally pretty generally run into the semi- 
infidel sentiments, of no atonement — no Divine 
Saviour— 710 Holy Ghost, and no superatural 
change of heart ; as well as " no hell — no 
devil — no angry God." It may be a matter of 
some surprise, perhaps, to a superficial observer, 
or to one not personally acquainted with the 



102 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

circumstances of the case, why, in leaving Cal- 
vinism, these men should go so far beyond the 
line of truth. But in this we see the known 
tendency of the human mind to run into ex- 
tremes. The repulsive features of the old 
system drove them far the other way. It ought 
to be remembered, also, that there were few, if 
any, who were stationed on the medium line, to 
arrest and delay the public mind in its fearful 
recoil from the " horrible decree." Had Metho- 
dism been as well known in New-England fifty 
years ago, as it now is, it is doubtful whether 
Universalism or Unitarianism would have gained 
much influence in this country. Late as it was 
introduced, and much as it was opposed, it is 
believed to have done much toward checking 
the progress of those sentiments. And perhaps 
it is in part owing to the earlier introduction, 
and more extensive spread of Methodism, in 
Connecticut, that Unitarianism has not gained 
more influence in the state. This is undoubtedly 
the fact in the states of Vermont, New-Hamp- 
,shire, and Maine, where Methodism was intro- 
duced nearly as early as those other sentiments. 
The result has shown that the foregoing suppo- 
sition is corroborated by facts in those cases 
where the experiment has been tried. These 
remarks may not now be credited, but the time 
will come, when the prejudices of the day are 
worn out, that the candid historian will do the 
subject justice. But to return — though Unita- 
rianism and Universalism are believed to be 
dangerous errors, yet, as is often the case, they 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. W6 

have contributed much, doubtless, to detect the 
errors and modify the features of the opposite 
system. Simultaneously with them, the Metho- 
dists have engaged in opposing the Calvinistic 
dogmas. This close examination and thorough 
opposition, with such other causes as may have 
co-operated in the work, have driven some of 
the peculiarities of the Hopkinsian theory into 
disrepute, more suddenly even than they rose 
into credit. The sublimated doctrine of disin- 
terested benevolence was so like " an airy 
nothing," that even the speculative minds of the 
shrewdest metaphysicians could not find for it 
" a local habitation," in heaven or on earth ; 
and the almost blasphemous dogma, that God 
was the efficient cause of sin, was more abhor- 
rent, if possible, than even the horrible decree 
of reprobation. Both, therefore, with the ex- 
ceptions hereafter mentioned, disappeared. The 
former, being of an ethereal character, silently 
evaporated into " thin air ;" but the other, being 
of a grosser nature, and withal more essential 
to the system itself, settled to the bottom, and is 
now rarely visible, except when the hand of 
controversy shakes up the sediment. The doc- 
trine of universal atonement, however, was 
retained, and the theological vocabulary was not 
only retained, but enlarged and improved. So 
that from that day to this, we hear but little of 
the doctrine of reprobation, or of the decrees 
of God, but much is said of God's " electing 
love," his " Divine sovereignty,'' and " gracious 
purposes*" By which is meant, according to 



104 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

the glossary, the doctrine of unconditional 
election and reprobation, and of absolute pre- 
destination. The scriptures, also, which used to 
be quoted to prove the direct efficiency of God, 
in producing sin and securing the condemnation 
of the reprobate, receive a different explanation, 
varying but little, if any, from the Arminian 
interpretation of those passages. It cannot be 
doubted, I think, but there has been quite a 
change in the views of the great body of the 
Calvinists — -and yet not so great and so thorough 
a change as appearances and terms might at 
first view seem to indicate. It is not easy to 
eradicate old prejudices. And it is often found 
that the mind will cling to the first principles 
of a favourite system, even after the other parts 
are so modified as that the new principles would 
supplant the old, if suffered to be carried out into 
a consistent whole. In every such case, much 
labour and argument will be spent in trying to 
unite the old with the new ; but in every instance 
the rent becomes worse. This leads to a kind 
of vacillating policy, and an ambiguous course 
of argument, accompanied with reiterated com- 
plaints, that the opposers of the system misun- 
derstand and misrepresent iU And it would be 
no wonder if the constant friction in the incon- 
gruous machinery should chafe the mind, and 
lead to a dogmatic and an impatient spirit. How 
far this corresponds with the existing facts, in 
the Calvinistic controversy, others can judge. 
In my own view, the peculiar circumstances of 
the case, connected with the known character 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 105 

of the human mind, fully account for the appa- 
rent tergiversation and changing of argument, 
in this controversy, without criminating the 
motives of our predestinarian brethren, as some 
have unjustly accused me of doing. The 
different parts of the system have lost, in a 
measure, their original affinities, and yet they 
have some partial and irregular attractions, 
which lead them to unite in unnatural and 
grotesque forms. And as there is no common 
consent and settled mode of operating among 
the many who are experimenting upon the mate- 
rials, there are various sectional and individual 
formations, which are inconsistent with each 
other. And their incongruity is the more 
apparent from the unanimous effort (which I 
believe is the only work of union in " the class") 
to amalgamate each and every variety with the 
old substratum of the system, — " God foreordains 
whatsoever comes to pass." 

The completion of this historical sketch, 
together with a view of the present state of the 
Calvinistic parties, may be expected in the next 
number. After which it is proposed to proceed 
to an examination of the doctrines in dispute. 



NUMBER V. 

SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED. 

One modification of Calvinism remains to be 
mentioned. It is known by the name of the 



106 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

"New Divinity." The theological doctors 
connected with Yale college are the reputed 
authors of this system. It is evident, however, 
that the tendency of the Calvinistic theory has 
been in this direction for a number of years. 
The 6t New Divinity," so alarming to some of 
the Calvinists, is only the ripe fruits of the very 
plants which they have long cultivated with 
assiduous care. And why should they start 
back at results which they have long laboured to 
produce ? This theory, in the first place, is an 
attempt to make the doctrine, and the technical 
terms alluded to, coincide. In the second 
place, it is designed, by a new philosophy of 
predestination, to get rid of the " logical conse- 
quences" that have always pressed heavily upon 
the old system. Finally, it is a device to recon- 
cile the doctrine of depravity with the former 
current sentiment, that man has natural ability 
to convert himself and get to heaven without 
grace. The two pillars of the new system are, 
1. " Sin is not a propagated property of the 
human soul, but consists wholly in moral exer- 
cise" 2. " Sin is not the necessary means of 
the greatest good ;" or, in other words, " Sin is 
not preferable to holiness in its stead." The 
Calvinistic opposers of this theory tell us that 
these sentiments have been held and taught to 
some extent for the last ten years. They were 
more fully and more openly announced, however, 
by Dr. Taylor, of the theological school belong- 
ing to Yale College, in a concio ad clerum 
preached Sept. 10th, 1828. From the time of 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 107 

the publication of this sermon the alarm has 
been sounded, and the controversy has been 
carried on. The opposers of the new doctrine 
call it heresy ; and in a late publication they 
seem to intimate that Dr. T. and his associates 
are nearly if not quite as heretical as the author 
of the sermon on predestination and election. 
The doctor and his friends, on the other hand, 
strenuously maintain that they are orthodox ; 
and to prove it, they repeat, again and again, 
" We believe that God did, for his own glory, 
foreordain whatsoever comes to pass." The 
Christian Spectator, an ably conducted quarterly 
journal, is devoted chiefly to the defence of this 
theory, aided by the New- York Evangelist, and 
several other minor periodicals, and by a very 
respectable body of the clergy. What pro- 
portion, however, have embraced this system is 
not known ; but many, both in and out of Con- 
necticut, have espoused the cause with great 
zeal. The contest waxes warmer each year. 
Against the theory, Dr. Woods, of the Andover 
theological seminary, Dr. Griffin, of Williams 
college, Dr. Tyler, of Portland, the Rev. Mr. 
Hervey, of Connecticut, and several others have 
entered the lists of controversy ; and last of all, 
a pamphlet, supposed to be the joint labour of 
a number of clergymen, has been published, in 
which the New Divinity is denounced as heresy, 
a formal separation of the Churches is pre- 
dicted, and a withdrawal of patronage from 
Yale college is threatened on the ground that 
« Yale will become in Connecticut what Harvard 



108 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

is in Massachusetts." It is uncertain, however, 
whether those ultra measures will be responded 
to by the great body of the clergy in New- 
England. There is a party which still adheres 
to the old — I may say, perhaps, to the oldest 
modification of Calvinism in this country. 
This party are for maintaining the old land- 
marks at all hazards, rightly judging that these 
palliations and explanations of the system will 
ultimate in its destruction. They are not 
numerous, but still respectable as to numbers 
and talents. They are sustained in Boston by 
the Boston Telegraph, so called, a weekly 
periodical, which does not hesitate to go the 
whole length — logical consequences and all. 
Witness the following quotation from a review 
of my sermon, in the number for Jan. 23d. 
Speaking of the charge in the sermon, that 
Calvinism makes God the author of sin, the 
writer says : — " The word author is sometimes 
used to mean efficient cause. Now I am willing 
to admit that those scriptures which teach that 
God has decreed the sinful conduct of men, do 
imply that he is the efficient cause of moral 
evil. For his own glory and the greatest good 
he said, Let there be sin, and there was sin ! ! /" 
The following is another specimen of Calvinism 
from the same periodical. If any man " affirms 
that man really chooses, and that his acts of 
will are caused by his own free, voluntary, and 
efficient mind, then he is no Calvinist" In 
this last quotation, as well as in the preceding, 
there is the most direct opposition to Dr. Taylor ? 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 109 

since he maintains, if I understand him, that 
man's is an independent agency- — that the human 
mind is the originator of thought and volition. 
Thus are these two branches of the Calvinistic 
family directly at variance with each other. 
And, in fact, the Telegraph and its supporters 
are not only at variance with the newest divinity, 
but with all the different degrees of new, newer, 
newest, and denounce them all as heresy. 

The present advocates of predestination and 
particular election may be divided into four 
classes: — 1. The old school Calvinists. 2. 
Hopkinsians. 3. Reformed Hopkinsians. 4. 
Advocates of the New Divinity. By the 
reformed Hopkinsians I mean those who have 
left out of their creed Dr. Hopkins' doctrine of 
disinterested benevolence, Divine efficiency in 
producing sin, &c, and yet hold to a general 
atonement, natural ability, &c. These con- 
stitute, doubtless, the largest division in the 
" class" in New-England. Next, as to numbers, 
probably, are the new school, then Hopkinsians, 
and last, the old school. These subdivisions 
doubtless run into each other in various combi- 
nations ; but the outlines of these four sub-classes 
are, I think, distinctly marked. 

The preceding sketch has been confined 
mostly to the theological changes in New- 
England ; but it will apply, to a considerable 
extent, to other parts of the nation. The Pres- 
byterian Church, by reason of its ecclesiastical 
government, is more consolidated, and of course 
less liable to change than the independent 



110 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

Congregational Churches of the eastern states. 
But the Presbyterian Church has felt the changes 
of the east, and is coming more and more 
under their influence. It is now a number of 
years since the " triangle," as it was called, was 
published in New- York. This was a most 
severe and witty allegory, against the dogmas 
and bigotry of old Calvinism. From this work 
this old theory has obtained the epithet of 
" triangular." Whenever a man advocates the 
doctrine of limited atonement, imputed sin, and 
imputed righteousness, he is said to be " trian- 
gular." These old triangular notions are giving 
place very rapidly to modern improvements. 
And although the most strenuous opposition has 
been made in the General Assembly, in different 
publications, and elsewhere, yet the votes in the 
last General Assembly show, I think, that the 
whole Church is yielding herself up to the 
resistless march of innovation. It may be 
doubted whether the state of New-York is not 
emphatically the strong hold of the New 
Divinity, so far as popular sentiment is con- 
cerned ; and whether, indeed, with the exception 
of New-Haven, there is not the greatest moral 
influence enlisted there, for the propagation of 
the new theory. 

Thus have I endeavoured to glance over the 
various modifications and present characteristics 
of that mode of Christian doctrines called 
Calvinism. Here a few suggestions present 
themselves, which, from their relation to the 
present controversy, I will now set down. 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. Ill 

It seems singular that, differing as they pro- 
fess to, so materially, on many points, each 
individual of each sub-class should feel himself 
injured whenever Calvinism, under this common 
name, is opposed in any of its features. The 
sermon on predestination was against Calvinism, 
and lo ! all parties rise up against the sermon. 
And yet, whether it object to Calvinistic policy 
or to Calvinistic doctrine, the different parties 
accuse their opponents of being guilty of the 
charge, but they themselves are clear. I cannot 
think of a single important position assumed by 
the sermon against predestination and election, 
which is not sustained by Calvinists themselves 
in opposition to some of their brethren ; nor yet 
of a single charge against their policy, for their 
changes and ambiguous methods of stating and 
defending their doctrines, which has not been 
reiterated by professed Calvinists themselves 
against their brethren. Thus the sermon is 
sustained by the Calvinists themselves, and yet 
they all condemn it ! If some Calvinists think 
that the objections of the sermon lie against 
some modifications of their system, is it not 
possible that these objections have a more 
general application than any of them seem 
willing to acknowledge? For example: it is 
objected to predestination that it " makes God 
the author of sin, destroys free agency, arrays 
God's decrees against his revealed word, mars 
his moral attributes, puts an excuse into the 
mouth of the impenitent sinner, implies uncon- 
ditional reorobation, makes God partial and o 



112 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY* 



respecter of persons, necessarily limits the 
atonement," &c. These charges, say the 
Calvinists, are very unjust, ungenerous — in fact, 
they bear false witness against our neighbours. 
This is said by Mr. Metcalf, and by others of 
the New-Haven school. And yet what says the 
Spectator, the organ and oracle of that school ? 
It says of Dr. Tyler, and of others who oppose 
the peculiar views of Dr. Taylor, comprising, as 
we have seen, the great majority of Calvinists, 
that their views " limit God in power and good- 
ness" — " make the worst kind of moral action 
the best" — " if carried out in their legitimate 
consequences, would lead to universalism, to 
infidelity, to atheism" — " they confound right 
and wrong, and subvert all moral distinctions" — 
" according to these views, mankind are bound 
to believe that they shall please and glorify God 
more by sin than by obedience, and therefore to 
act accordingly" — " nothing worse can be im- 
puted to the worst of men than this theory 
imputes to God" ! ! !* Has the author of the 
sermon said more than this, and worse than this, 
of Calvinism ? And shall he be accused by 
these very men of bearing false witness against 
his brethren ? And let it be observed farther, 
in justification of the sermon, that these charges 
in the Spectator are made by men who have 
been brought up at the feet of the Calvinistic 
doctors, and have themselves grown up to the 
character and rank of doctors in theology. 
They know the system thoroughly ; they have 

* See Chri&tian Spectator, Vol. iv, No, 3, 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 113 

made it the study of their lives, and have they 
testified to the truth respecting this theory ? So 
then has the author of the sermon. Such is the 
testimony on the one side ; and on the other 
we have decided predestinarians acknowledging, 
as an article of their creed, what in the sermon 
was urged as only a logical consequence. Ac- 
cording to this system, says the sermon, " the fiat 
of God brought forth sin as certainly as it made 
the world." Hear the Boston Telegraph : — 
" God, for his own glory and for the good of 
the world, said, Let there be sin, and there was 
sin!" Now I beg the reader to look at this 
subject for a moment. For brevity's sake we 
will call the Boston Telegraph and its supporters 
No. 1 ; the Andover theological seminary and 
its supporters, which constitute by far the larger 
body of predestinarians in New-England, No. 2 ; 
and the New-Haven divines and their supporters 
No. 3. The sermon charges predestination 
with making God the author of sin. No. 2 
says this is false : I neither believe it, nor is it 
to be inferred from my premises. It is true, 
says No. 1 : I am willing to admit that God is 
the efficient cause of sin. He said, Let there 
be sin, and there was sin. It is true, responds 
No 3, that all who hold and explain predestina- 
tion as Nos. 1 and 2 explain it, are exposed to 
the full force of the objections in the sermon — 
against such views " the arguments of the ser- 
mon are unanswerable." No. 2, in vindication, 
says that No. 1 is on the old plan — very few 
hold with him in these days. And as for No. 
8 



114 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



3, he is already a rank Arminian ; and if he 
would be consistent, he must give up uncon- 
ditional election, and embrace the whole 
Arminian theory. Thus do they destroy each 
other, and confirm the doctrine of the sermon. 
And shall we still be told that we do not under- 
stand this doctrine ? Have anti-predestinarians 
misunderstood this from John Calvin's day to 
the present? Does honest No. 1 misunderstand 
it ? Does well instructed No. 3 misunderstand 
it? What then is Calvinism, that cannot, 
through the lapse of centuries, make itself 
understood either by friend or foe? Is not this, 
of itself, a suspicious trait in its character ? 
Let us quote a Calvinistic writer, whose senti. 
ments are much in point, though aimed at the 
New Divinity -" It is a serious ground of 
suspicion," says this writer, " that Dr. Taylor 
has failed, according to his own repeated decla* 
rations, to render his speculations intelligible to 
others. It must be granted that a man of sense, 
who is acquainted with the power of language, 
can, if he is disposed, make himself understood." 
* Some of the most intelligent men in the 
country have utterly failed to compass Dr. T.'s 
meaning in argument : so that he declares again 
and again, I am not understood— I am misre* 
presented. Who under such circumstances can 
refrain from suspicion f 1 " Another suspicious 
circumstance in the case is, that Dr. Taylor 
expresses himself in ambiguous terms and 
phrases, which, though they are designed to 
influence the mind of a reader, afford him the 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 115 

opportunity to avoid responsibility." See pam- 
phlet by Edwardian, pp. 28 and 29. If this is 
justly said of Dr. Taylor's recent theory, what 
shall we say of a system the advocates of which, 
" according to their repeated declarations, have 
not been able to render their speculations intel- 
ligible," after the theory has had exhausted upon 
it the highly cultivated intellects of hosts of 
expositors through successive generations? 
" Who, under such circumstances, can refrain 
from suspicion ff especially since these advocates 
have learned " to express themselves in ambigu- 
ous terms and phrases which, though they are 
designed to influence the mind of a reader, 
afford them an opportunity to avoid responsi- 
bility." To Calvinism it may truly be said, 
" Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee." 
Let not the author of the sermon then be 
accused of bearing false witness, when his 
testimony is predicated on principles which 
Calvinists have laid down, and is also corrobo- 
rated by men of their " own class." 

Will it be said, All this is not argument. I 
answer, The sermon, it is supposed, contains 
arguments — arguments which professed predes- 
tinarians themselves tell us are unanswerable 
against the prevailing modes of stating and 
explaining the doctrine. Now let them be 
answered, if they can be. Let them be an- 
swered, not by giving up predestination, in the 
Calvinistic sense, and still professing to hold it 
— not by attempting to avoid the logical conse- 
quences, by giving the system the thousandth 



116 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

explanation, when the nine hundred and ninety- 
nine already given have made it no plainer, nor 
evaded at all the just consequences, so often 
charged upon it ; and when these are answered, 
it will then be time enough to call for new 
arguments. 

Having prepared the way, as I hope, by the 
preceding numbers, for the proper understanding 
of the controversy ; and having, by the remarks 
just made, attempted (with what success the 
reader must judge) to repel the charges of 
misrepresentation and bearing false witness, 
made against me, as the author of the sermon 
which gave rise to the controversy, I am now 
prepared, in my next number to commence an 
examination of some of the questions of doctrine, 
connected with this discussion. In doing which, 
my object will be, to let " Greek with Greek 
contend" so far as to show, if possible, the in- 
consistency of both, and then present the doctrine 
which we believe to be the true system, and 
show how it stands untouched by the conflicting 
elements around it as the immovable foundation 
of the Church of God. I shall begin with the 
Divine purposes including foreknowledge ; then 
take up human agency and responsibility ; and 
last, regeneration, connected with the doctrine 
of human depravity, Divine and human agency, 
&c. May He that said, " Let light be, and 
light was," " shine in our hearts, to give the 
light of the knowledge of the glory of God, in 
the face of Jesus Christ," 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 117 



NUMBER VI. 

PREDESTINATION. 

Definitions are the foundations of reasoning. 
Hence in any reply to my sermon on predesti- 
nation and election it was natural and fair that 
the first inquiry should be, Are the definitions 
correct ? The definition of predestination as- 
sumed in the sermon was, that unalterable pur- 
pose and efficient decree of God, by which the 
moral character and responsible acts of man 
were definitely fixed and efficiently produced. 
On this point the sermon joined issue. To this 
definition most of the notices and reviews, to the 
number of six or seven, which I have seen, have 
taken exceptions. The review in the Boston 
Telegraph, however, is not of this number. — 
That, as has already been noticed, agrees with 
the charge in the sermon, that " the fiat of God 
brought forth sin as directly as it made the 
world." We have only to leave those Calvin- 
ists, who accord to that sentiment, to struggle, 
as they can, against the arguments of the sermon 
— against the common sense of the world — 
against their own convictions of right and wrong 
— and, I may add, against their own brethren of 
" the class," some of whom have already pub- 
licly denounced the sentiment as " horrid blas- 
phemy." At this day of light, in which naked 
Calvinism is abhorred by most of those who 
bear the name of Calvinists, it is hardly neces- 
sary to give a formal answer to such a review. 



118 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



We approve of the logical consistency of these 
men — we admire the moral courage that, from 
assumed premises, pushes out a theory to its 
legitimate results without flinching ; but we- 
are astonished at the moral nerce that can con- 
template such results with complacency. For 
myself I confess when I see this naked system 
of Calvinism fulminating the curse of reprobation 
in the teeth of the miserable wretch whose only 
crime is, that his God has made him a sinner, 
my heart recoils with indescribable horror ! 
Let him contemplate this picture who can. I 
covet not his head or his heart. 

Of others w T ho have expressed their views of 
the sermon there are two classes : 1. The con- 
ductors of the Christian Spectator and those 
who favour their views ; and 2. Those who in 
a former number were called Reformed Hop- 
kinsians. The latter comprehend the larger 
portion of Calvinists in New-England, and pro- 
bably in the United States. Their views on 
predestination shall be noticed in another num- 
ber. At present I shall direct my remarks to 
the letters of Mr. Metcalf and to» the first and 
second notices of the sermon in the Christian 
Spectator. And here let me say, once for all, 
that I do not consider either of these gentlemen, 
or any who think with them, responsible for the 
doctrine of predestination as stated and opposed 
in the sermon. This I hope will be satisfacto- 
ry. If these gentlemen should ask me why I 
published my sermon in terms that included Cal- 
vinists generally, without making the exception 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 119 



in their favour, I answer, 1. The views of Dr. 
Taylor and " those who believe with him," on 
this particular point, were unknown to me at 
the time. Nor is this strange, for it is but lately 
that those views have been fully developed — • 
never so fully before, probably, as in Dr. Fitch's 
review of my sermon, already alluded to. 2. 
It never occurred to me that any man or any set 
of men holding, in respect to predestination, the 
doctrine of James Arminius, John Wesley, and 
the whole body of Methodists, would call them- 
selves Calvinists ! ! This is all the apology I 
have, and whether or not it is sufficient^ the 
public must judge. By acknowledging the 
views of these gentlemen to be Methodistical on 
the subject of predestination, I by no means would 
be understood to say this of their system as a 
whole — the objectionable parts will be noticed 
in their place. But whatever is true is none 
the less so for being mixed with error. There 
are some things, however, to be regretted and 
exposed in the manner in which these reviewers 
have expressed their doctrine of predestination, 
and also in the manner in which they have op- 
posed the sermon and Arminianism generally. 
They complain of my definition of predestina- 
tion. Mr. M. thinks it is bearing false witness. 
The reviewer thinks it is obviously erroneous 
and unjust. And yet they themselves acknow- 
ledge that the sermon is an unanswerable refu- 
tation of predestination as held by Dr. Tyler and 
others who oppose their views. But what is a 
matter of the greatest surprise is the determina* 



120 CALVmSTIC CONTROVERSY. 

tion with which these gentlemen persist in hold- 
ing up the idea that their views essentially differ 
from ours. Dr. Fitch, in his answer to my 
reply, says : — 

" There are three views, and only three, which 
can be taken of the Divine purposes in relation 
to a moral kingdom : — 

" 1. That God, foreseeing the certainty of the 
conduct of his creatures, purposes merely to treat 
them in a corresponding manner. 

" 2. That he, first of all, resolves what the 
conduct of his creatures shall be, and next re- 
solves on such measures as shall bring them to 
that conduct. 

" 3. That, foreseeing the conduct which will 
certainly ensue on the different measures it is 
possible for him to take, he purposes to pursue 
those measures which will certainly lead to the 
best possible results" 

" The first view is that which we understood 
to be advocated by Dr. Fisk, in the sermon we 
reviewed." The writer goes on farther to say 
that his objection to this is, " that it is utterly 
deficient" — " that it passes over in silence all 
those acts of God in creation and government 
by which he determines character." Of course 
he means to say that the sermon advocated a 
theory which left out of the question all the Di- 
vine influence in determining character. How 
strangely he has misunderstood the sermon, let 
those judge who have read it. It teaches that 
God hath fixed the laws of the physical and mo- 
ral world ; that he has a general plan, suited to 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 121 

all the various circumstances and contingencies 
of government ; that God gives the sinner power 
to choose life ; that his grace enlightens and 
strengthens the sinner to seek after and obtain 
salvation. In short, it must be obvious that no 
man who believes in the Divine government and 
in Gospel provisions can leave this influence out 
of his system. I will therefore venture upon the 
following declaration, which it is presumed Dr. 
Fitch cannot gainsay, namely, Dr. F. never saw 
a man and never heard of a man that was a 
believer in revelation, who left out of his creed 
all that conduct in God which determines cha- 
racter. That such was not the character of my 
creed, the reviewer might have learned in my 
reply to his first review, if he could not from 
the sermon. In the reply it is said, " As God 
foresaw men would sin, he also determined upon 
the plan he would pursue in reference to them 
as sinners, and arranged in the counsels of his 
own infinite mind the extended concatenation 
of causes and effects so as to ' make the wrath 
of man praise him,' and deduce the greatest 
possible good from the best -possible system" — 
And yet, strange to tell, in his answer to my 
reply, the reviewer says as decidedly as if it 
were an undisputed truth, " Dr. Fisk advocates 
the first," (meaning the first view of the Divine 
purposes given above.) " We brought forward 
the third," (meaning the third view.) " Now 
since the third upholds the fact of foreordination, 
free from the objections of Dr. F., we have suc- 
ceeded in upholding the fact which Dr. F, 3 as an 



122 CALVlrUSTIC CONTROVERSY. 

Arminian, denies, and which Calvinists maintain." 
Whereas he ought to have said, for he had my 
statement for it directly before him, " Dr. Fisk 
advocates the third," and then he might have 
added, " Now since the third destroys the Cal- 
vinistic doctrine of foreordination, therefore in 
assisting Dr. Fisk to sustain the third we have 
succeeded in disproving the doctrine of foreor- 
dination, which Arminians deny, and Calvinists 
have attempted to maintain." In fact, as the 
reviewer says, there can be but those three 
views taken of the Divine purposes ; and since 
neither I nor any other Arminian ever believed 
in the first, and as Dr. Fitch himself acknow- 
ledges we are directly opposed to the second, it 
follows that we must believe the third. But the 
third is the reviewer's creed : therefore on this 
point he is an Arminian, or we are Calvinists. 

That the reviewer's theory on predestination 
is about the same with the Methodists' appears 
evident from the following quotations from Mr. 
Wesley, in which it will be seen that not only 
does Mr. Wesley's creed include all the Divine 
influence that goes "to determine character," 
but also that God " pursues measures which will 
certainly lead to the best possible results ;" nay, 
that he does all that he wisely can to exclude sin 
from the moral universe. These are points for 
which the advocates of the New-Haven theory 
strongly contend. Let them see, then, how in 
this matter they have identified themselves with 
Arminians. 

" To God/' says Mr. Wesley, in his sermon 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 12S 



on Divine providence, " all things are possible ; 
and we cannot doubt of his exerting all his 
power, as in sustaining so in governing all that 
he has made. Only he that can do all things 
else cannot deny himself — he cannot counteract 
himself or oppose his own work. Were it not 
for this, he would destroy all sin, with its at- 
tendant pain, in a moment. But in so doing he 
would counteract himself, and undo all that he 
has been doing since he- created man upon the 
earth. For he created man in his own image— 
a spirit endued with understanding, with will or 
affections, and liberty, without which he would 
have been incapable of either virtue or vice. He 
could not be a moral agent, any more than a tree 
or a stone. Therefore (with reverence be it 
spoken) the Almighty himself cannot do this 
thing. He cannot thus contradict himself or 
undo what he has done. But were he to do 
this, it would imply no wisdom at all, but barely 
a stroke of omnipotence. Whereas all the mani- 
fold wisdom of God (as well as all his power 
and goodness) is displayed in governing man as 
man — as an intelligent and free spirit^ capable 
of choosing either good or evil." 

Again. In the sermon entitled, The Wisdom 
of God's Counsels : * In the moral world evil 
men and evil spirits continually oppose the Di- 
vine will, and create numberless irregularities. 
Here therefore is full scope for the exercise of 
all the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge 
of God in counteracting all the wickedness and 
folly of men and all the subtlety of Satan, to 



124 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

carry on his glorious design, the salvation of lost 
mankind." Now let me ask the reviewer, Is 
this leaving out all the Divine influence that 
determines character? Is not this maintaining 
that, "in view of the measures that it was possible 
for God to take, he purposes to pursue those 
measures that will certainly lead to the best pos- 
sible result?" Is Dr. Fitch ignorant of what 
Methodists hold to ? or is he unwilling to identi- 
fy himself with us ? Ignorant of my views he 
could not be, I think, after reading my reply. — 
Why, then, does he persist in talking of a differ- 
ence where there is none ? 

Mr. Metcalf has taken a more correct view of 
the subject. After reading my reply, he says, 
"If you will preach this doctrine to your Me- 
thodist brethren thoroughly and forcibly, and 
sustain it with the strong arguments on which 
the doctrine rests, if they do not call it Calvin- 
ism, I will acknowledge they do not understand 
the term as I do. And if you will preach in the 
same way to Calvinists, if they too do not call 
it Calvinism, I will grant that even they too 
sometimes differ about terms. If you will take 
this course, I think when you shall see what 
the doctrine will be called, the astonishment you 
express that it should be regarded as Calvinism 
will wear away." Now how surprised Mr. M. 
will be when he learns that we have always 
preached this doctrine as thoroughly and forci- 
bly as we could, and neither Methodists nor Cal- 
vinists ever suspected it was Calvinism until he 
and those who believe with him incorporated it 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 125 



into their creed, and for some reason unknown 
to us, called it Calvinism ! And how surprised 
we all are to find that he who was so anxious to 
be heard in the Christian Advocate and Journal, 
for the purpose of informing Methodists what 
Calvinism was, and of disabusing their minds of 
erroneous conceptions on this subject, himself 
understands neither Methodism nor Calvinism ! ! 
Yet so it is, Calvinists themselves being judges. 
Dr. Tyler, Dr. Griffin, Dr. Woods, the author 
of " Views in Theology," the author or authors 
of the pamphlet by an Edwardian, all condemn 
the New-Haven theory of predestination as anti- 
Calvinistic, and as being essentially Arminian. 

Dr. Fitch acknowledges that we agree in 
some of the first principles. In reply to my 
answer he says, " It was certainly our intention 
to place this contested doctrine on grounds 
which our Wesleyan brethren could not dispute, 
and it gives us pleasure to find that in this we 
have had complete success !" There are two 
things a little remarkable connected with this 
sentiment. One is, that the writer should so 
express himself as to convey the idea that he 
has traced up the subject to first principles with 
much care, and, to his great satisfaction, has 
succeeded in convincing us of the correctness of 
his premises. Whereas it is evident from the 
passages already given from Mr. Wesley, and 
from the universal sentiments of the Wesleyan 
Methodists, that the New-Haven doctors have 
at length come on to our ground ; and it gives 
us great pleasure to find that, from some source, 



126 CALVIXISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

arguments in favour of our system have with them 
met with complete success. The other thing that 
strikes me as remarkable is, that after the re- 
viewer had acknowledged that we were agreed 
in these first principles, he should immediately 
go on to say, as has already been mentioned, 
that I and the Arminians hold to the first view 
he has given of the three possible views that 
might be taken of predestination, and deny the 
third ; when at the same time the third contains 
tJiose very first principles in which he says we 
are agreed. This looks so much like a contra- 
diction, almost in the same breath, that I really 
know not what other name to give it. If these 
gentlemen are disposed to come into the fortress 
of truth, and assist us in manning our guns and 
working our artillery against error, we certain- 
ly can have no objection. We are fond of help. 
But they must pardon us if we revolt a little at 
the idea of their taking the lead in this business, 
and accounting us as mere novices who have 
only learned, and that too from themselves, some 
of the elementary principles. Nay, they must 
not wonder if we refuse outright to be crowded 
from our present commanding position in the 
fortress of truth, and to be placed in front of our 
own batteries, merely to give our new allies 
an opportunity to blow us up with our own 
ordnance ! 

In reply to my objection to the reviewer that 
" it was an abuse of terms to call the permission 
of sin, not hindering it, &c, a foreordination or 
purpose that it shall be," drc, he has said, "If 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 127 



an evil, unavoidable and hateful, is allowed by 
the Creator to come into his kingdom, in one 
place and time rather than any other, and is 
thus particularly disposed of by his providence, 
because it is a disposition of it the best possible, 
is there no purpose of God in relation to the 
thing 1 In doing his own pleasure, in this case, 
does he not decide on the fact of the entrance of 
sin into his kingdom just when and where it 
does?" Now I beg the reader to go over this 
last paragraph once more, and then say if he 
does not agree with me in the following senti- 
ment, namely, there rarely occurs in any writer 
an instance of so complete an evasion of a con- 
tested question as is here exhibited. Is there no 
difference between a " purpose in relation to a 
thing," and the foreordaining or decreeing that 
the thing shall be 1 And pray what is meant by 
God's 66 deciding on the fact of the entrance of 
sin into his kingdom ?" You can make it mean 
almost any thing, But taking the whole of 
Dr. Fitch's theory on the subject, he means to 
say, doubtless, that since the entrance of sin was 
unavoidable, God determined to restrain and 
control it so as to suffer it to do the least harm 
possible — preferring holiness in its stead in ever)' 
place where it occurs. And this is foreordain- 
ing sin ! ! This is predestination ! ! Let us 
illustrate this by a case in point. Cicero, a 
Roman consul, knew that Cataline was plotting 
treason against the commonwealth. Cicero 
perceived that this hated treason, though una- 
voidable, was not wholly unmanageable. He 



128 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

determined therefore to " make a disposition of 
it the best possible." He took his measures 
accordingly. By these Cataline and the princi- 
pal conspirators were driven out of the city, and 
compelled, before their plans were matured, to 
resort to open hostilities. Thus the citizens 
were aroused and united, and the state saved. 
In this way the evils of the conspiracy were 
suffered to come upon the commonwealth " in 
one place and time rather than any other," and 
" were thus particularly disposed of" by Cicero. 
In this case the consul had a special " purpose 
about the thing." He determined to drive the 
conspirators into open war, rather than suffer 
them privately to corrupt all they could, and then 
fill the city with fire and slaughter. The ques- 
tion now is, and it is put not to the reviewer, 
for he still persists in the use of his terms, but it 
is put to the common understanding of commu- 
nity, Did the Roman consul ordain or foreor- 
dain, or predestinate the treason of Cataline ? 
If by common consent all answer, No, such a 
statement is a libel upon the consul ; and if, in 
addition to this common understanding of the 
term, the theological use of the term will not bear 
such a construction ; if the great body of the 
Calvinists of the present day, and of New-Eng- 
land even, use the term in a different sense, it 
remains to be seen how the New-Haven divines 
can stand up before the world and say, " We 
believe God hath foreordained whatsoever comes 
to pass." 

Before closing this number I ought, perhaps, 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 129 

to say a few things, if not in the defence, at 
least explanatory of that course of reasoning 
in the sermon in which I undertook to show that 
foreknowledge is antecedent to foreordination. 
To this Mr. Metcalf and others have objected, 
because, say they, God must first have deter- 
mined to make moral agents before he could 
know they would sin : therefore his knowledge or 
his foreknowledge in this case must depend upon 
his determination. This objection, at least so 
far as the New-Haven theology is concerned, is 
founded in error. What says Dr. Fitch ? 
44 That God, foreseeing the conduct which will 
certainly ensue on the different measures it is 
possible for him to take, purposes" <Scc. The 
sermon says, " God knows all that is, or will 
be, or might be, under any possible contin- 
gency," and that " his plan is the result of his 
infinite knowledge — the decrees of his throne 
flow forth from the eternal fountain of his wis- 
dom." Where is the discrepancy here ? God 
saw this general plan, as a whole, before he 
resolved upon its adoption ; (I speak now of the 
order of thought ;) he saw, if he made free mo- 
ral agents, and governed them as such, sin 
would ensue. And he also saw what he might 
do in that case to counteract and overrule it to 
his own glory and the good of the universe. — 
And he judged, in his infinite wisdom, that such 
a moral universe, notwithstanding the sin that 
would certainly result from it, would, on the 
whole, be the best ; and therefore upon this fore- 
knowledge of the whole, God founded his de- 
9 



130 CALVIXISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



termination to create the universe, and govern 
as proposed. God's foreknowledge of the cer 
tainty of any event in this universe, it must 
acknowledged, depended upon his determinatio 
to create and govern the universe. And in this 
sense his purpose was causa sine qua non, a 
cause without which any given event would not 
have happened, and therefore could not have 
been foreseen as certain. But then it should be 
remembered that there was a foreknowledge 
anterior to all this, and which was, in fact, the 
foundation of all subsequent instances of know- 
ing or decreeing. It is therefore true in the 
sense in which the sentiment is advanced and 
sustained in the sermon, that " God foreknows 
in order to predestinate, but he does not (prima- 
rily) predestinate in order to foreknow." 

To conclude : from the view taken in this 
number it appears that one class of Calvinists 
acknowledge that predestination is chargeable 
with all that was included in my definition of it. 
Another, and a rapidly increasing class, have 
given up Calvinian predestination, and, in all but 
the name, have in that point come on to the Me- 
thodist ground. There is still another class, 
who are evidently not Arminians, but still deny 
the correctness of my definition of their doctrine. 
They say they are not chargeable with such a 
doctrine, either directly or by inference. In the 
next number, therefore, an attempt will be 
made to sustain from their own positions this 
definition. 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 131 



NUMBER VII. 

PREDESTINATION, CONTINUED. 

From my last number the reader will perceive 
that there are two classes of Calvinists, se 
called, with whom we have no need to contend ; 
with one there is no cause of controversy, be- 
cause they have given up the doctrine ; and 
with the other there is no need of controversy, 
because their plain manner of avowing the 
doctrine, logical consequences and all, renders 
any arguments against it unnecessary. Its 
character is too monstrous and abhorrent to 
gain much credit. There is yet another and a 
larger portion, who, while they reject the views 
both of the New-Haven divines and of the old 
school and Hopkinsian Calvinists, are neverthe- 
less strongly opposed to the issue proposed in 
the sermon. They deny, as appears from some 
public intimations and many private statements, 
that I have given a fair representation of the 
doctrine. They appear to manifest as much 
horror as an Arminian would to the idea, that 
" the responsible acts of moral agents are 
definitely fixed and efficiently produced by the 
purpose and decree of God," — that these acts 
" are the result of an overruling and controlling 
power," — "that the will, in all its operations, 
is governed and irresistibly controlled by some 
secret impulse, some fixed and all-controlling 
arrangement." Hence, I suppose, if it can be 
proved that these are the genuine characteristics 



132 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



of Calvinism, the system itself will, by many 
at least, be given up. At any rate, since the 
exception is taken to the definition of the 
doctrine, it may be presumed, by sustaining 
this, we sustain our own cause and refute the 
opposite. The present inquiry then is, are these, 
in very deed, the characteristics of absolute 
predestination ? I shall endeavour to maintain 
that they are. Let the intelligent and the candid 
judge. 

1. It may be urged as a consideration of no 
small weight in this question, that all but pre- 
destinarians, as well as many predestinarians 
themselves, have entertained these views of 
the doctrine. With respect to anti-predestina- 
rians, I know of no exception ; all unite, in 
charging these things, directly or by consequence, 
upon the Calvinistic system. And will Cal- 
vinists say, this is owing to prejudice and to a 
want of understanding the subject ? With what 
kind of modesty will they assume that they are 
free from blinding prejudice in favour of their 
own doctrine, and all the world beside are 
prejudiced against it ? It may be asserted, as it 
often has been, that these doctrines are humbling 
to the pride of the natural heart, and this is the 
ground of the universal opposition to them ! 
But this is a gratuitous assumption of what 
ought first to be proved, viz. that these doctrines 
are true ; and it also exhibits a most reprehen- 
sible spirit of pride and Pharisaism — a spirit 
that says to a brother, " Stand by, for I am 
holier than thou!" There have doubtless been 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 133 

as many eminently pious Arminians as Calvin- 
ists, and how is it, that these men have never 
had this doctrine so explained to them as to be 
able to see it free from these charges ? 

But not only anti-predestinarians have univer- 
sally entertained these opinions of this doctrine ; 
even the advocates themselves have, in a great 
variety of instances, acknowledged the same. 
Mention has before been made, (in the sermon,) 
of the opposition raised against free will, by the 
Calvinists of Mr. Wesley's day — and quotations 
have also been given from the early Calvinistic 
authors, showing how decidedly they held that 
God moved the will to sin, by a direct positive 
influence. To these we may add all the Hopkin- 
sians of modern days, who openly acknowledge 
" that those scriptures which teach that God has 
decreed the sinful acts of men, do imply that he 
is the efficient cause of moral evil." (See 
review of my sermon in the Boston Telegraph.) 
It should not be forgotten, moreover, that the 
New- Haven divines, who have studied Calvin- 
ism all their lives, with the best opportunities 
for understanding it, inform us that the view of 
Calvinism which makes sin preferable to holi- 
ness in its stead, is unanswerably exposed to all 
the objections brought against it in the sermon. 
It is known too, that most of the Methodists in 
New-England, and many elsewhere, were edu- 
cated predestinarians ; but have revolted from 
the traditions of their fathers for the very reason 
that Calvinism is what we have described it to 
be. The Universalists are almost all predesti- 



134 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

narians, and they understand that this doctrine 
necessarily implies the Divine efficiency in pro- 
ducing sin ; and hence they very consistently 
infer that God is not angry with them, and will 
not punish them for being controlled by his 
decrees. 

Suppose now an intelligent person, who knew 
nothing of the arguments on either side, should 
be informed of what is true in this case, viz. 
that a great portion, probably on the whole by 
far the greatest portion of predestinarians, 
and all anti-predestinarians, understood the doc- 
trine of absolute predestination, as involving 
directly, or by consequence, certain specified 
principles ; but that a portion of predestinarians 
persisted in denying that these principles were 
involved in the doctrine ; and suppose this 
intelligent person should be informed of the 
additional facts, that these predestinarians had 
tried all their skill at explanation and argument, 
generation after generation, but had never suc- 
ceeded in the view of the other party in freeing 
their doctrine from these charges, nay, that they 
had so far failed of it, that many, very many 
were leaving them, and adopting the anti-predes- 
tinarian system, for the very reason that they 
could not rid the system, in which they had 
been educated, from those principles which 
were charged upon it — and that even among 
those who had adhered to the old doctrine there 
were new modes of explaining and stating the 
theory, constantly springing up, until finally 
numbers of them had explained themselves 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY 135 

entirely out of the doctrine, and into the opposite 
sentiment ; and that very many others, by 
adhering to the doctrine, and following out the 
principles involved in it, had come to the con- 
clusion that there was " no hell" — no judgment, 
and "no angry God." Suppose, I say, this 
intelligent man should be informed of all these 
; facts, and then be requested to presume whether 
or not these contested principles were involved 
in the doctrine — what would be his judgment ? 
I need not answer this question. There is 
strong presumptive evidence that the views in 
the sermon are correct, 

2. Another reason for believing that this 
doctrine is what we have defined it to be, and 
involves in it the principles we have charged 
upon it, is drawn from the terms in which it is 
expressed, and the manner and circumstances 
in which these terms are used. The more 
common terms are decree, predestination, fore- 
ordination, predetermination, purpose, fyc* — 
These are all authoritative terms, and carry 
with them the idea of absolute sovereignty. 
But lest they should not be sufficiently strong 
and imperious, they are, in this theory, generally 
accompanied by some strong qualifying terms, 
such as sovereign decree, eternal and immutable 
purposes ; and without any reference to other 
bearings, the whole is placed on the ground of 
God's absolute and sovereign will. These 
sovereign decrees, however, are not proposed to 
his subjects in the light of a law enforced by 
suitable sanctions, and liable to be broken, 



136 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

They are the secret counsels of his own will ; 
and so far from being law, that often, perhaps 
oftener than otherwise, in the moral world, they 
are in direct opposition to the precepts of the 
law. When these decrees come in contact 
with the law they supersede it. Laws may 
sometimes be broken, the decrees, never. God 
commits his law to subordinate moral agents, 
who may break or keep them ; but his decrees 
he executes himself. It should also be understood 
that the advocates of this theory, in their late 
controversy with Dr. Taylor, strenuously main- 
tain that sin, wherever it occurs, is preferable 
to holiness in its stead, and is the necessary 
means of the greatest good. The idea that God, 
foreseeing what moral agents would do, under 
all possible circumstances, so ordered his works 
as to take up and incorporate into his plan the 
foreseen volitions of moral agents, and thus 
constitute a grand whole, as perfect as any 
system which involves a moral government 
could be, they discard as rank Arminianism. 
Now is it possible that decrees like these, con. 
cealed in the eternal mind of him that conceived 
them — dependent solely on Almighty power to 
execute them, not modified by subordinate 
agencies, but made to control these agencies 
with absolute and arbitrary sway ; can it be 
possible, I say, that such decrees do not effi- 
ciently control and actuate the human will? 
Must not he who, in this manner, forms and 
executes the general plan, also form and execute 
all its parts ? Must not he who gives the first 



CALVIMSTIC CONTROVERSY. 137 



impulse to this concatenation of events, linked 
together by his eternal purposes, follow up the 
whole with his continued and direct agency, and 
carry on this work in every mind and through 
every emotion ? Most assuredly he must. His 
is, undoubtedly, according to this doctrine, 
that operative, controlling and propelling energy 
that 

" Lives through all life, extends through all extent, 
Acts undivided, operates unspent." 

And that we may be sure not to misrepresent 
the Calvinists on this subject, let them speak for 
themselves. Dr. Hill, who is a modern, and is 
reputed a moderate Calvinist, says : — " The 
Divine decree is the determination to 'produce 
the universe, that is, the whole series of beings 
and events that was then future." Dr. Chal- 
mers, who has been esteemed so moderate a 
Calvinist, that some had doubted whether he had 
not given up absolute predestination altogether, 
comes out in his sermon on predestination in 
the following language : — " Every step of every 
individual character, receives as determinate a 
character from the hand of God, as every 
mile of a planet's orbit, or every gust of wind, 
or every wave of the sea, or every particle of 
flying dust, or every rivulet of flowing water. 
This power of God knows no exceptions : it is 
absolute and unlimited. And while it embraces 
the vast, it carries its resistless influence to all 
the minute and unnoticed diversities of existence. 
It reigns and operates through all the secrecies of 



133 CALVrXISTIC cgxtroveksy. 




the inner man. It gives birth to every purpose, 
it gives impulse to every desire, it gives shape 
and colour to every conception. It wields an 
entire ascendancy over every attribute of the 
mind ; and the will, and the fancy, and the 
understanding, with all the countless variety of 
their hidden and fugitive operations, are sub- 
mitted to it. It gives movement and direction 
through every one point of our pilgrimage. At 
no moment of time does it abandon us. It fol- 
lows us to the hour of death, and it carries us 
to our place, and to our everlasting destiny in 
the region beyond it ! ! !" These quotations 
need no comment ; if they do not come up to 
all we have ever charged upon this doctrine, 
there is no definite meaning in words. 

But we have another authority on this sub- 
ject, which bears more directly on the Calvinists 
of this country, the Assembly's Catechism. 
Dr. Fitch, who is certainly as well qualified to 
judge in this matter as another man, informs us, 
through the medium of the Christian Spectator, 
that " the articles of faith prepared by that body, 
(the assembly of English and Scotch divines at 
Westminster,) are considered as expressing 
essentially the views not only of the Presbyte- 
rian Church in this country, but also of the 
orthodox Congregational Churches of New- 
England." It is known, also, that the Shorter 
Catechism has been almost universally used by 
them in their families, and in the religious 
instruction of their children. Here then we 
have a standard of faith, which all the classes, 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY, 139 

I suppose, will acknowledge, — and what saith it ? 
After stating that the decrees of God are his 
eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his 
own will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath 
foreordained whatsoever cometh to pass, it 
goes on to say, " God eocecuteth his decrees in 
the works of creation and providence," and then 
for farther explanation adds — " God's works of 
providence are his most holy, wise, and powerful, 
preserving and governing all his creatures and 
all their actions," This is certainly an awkward 
sentence, if I may be allowed to say this of 
the productions of an assembly which has been 
characterized as a paragon of excellency in 
erudition and theology. Its meaning, however, 
according to grammar and logic, must be, that 
by his acts of providence God, in a most holy, 
wise, and powerful manner, preserves and 
governs both all his creatures, and all their 
actions. But as it seems to be a solecism to 
talk about preserving actions, we will understand 
preserving to belong to creatures, and governing 
to actions, and then it will be thus : God power- 
fully preserves all his creatures, and powerfully 
governs all their actions : and it is in this way he 
executes his decrees. There are evidently two 
methods of governing. That control which is 
made up of legal precepts, and sanctions, and re- 
tributions, is called a government ; not that all the 
subjects of such a government always obey its 
ordinances, but if they violate them, they are 
subjected to punishment. This is evidently not 
the kind of government that the assembly con- 



140 CALVOISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

templated. It was a government by which God 
executed his decrees ; but, as we have seen, his 
decrees are not his laws, for they are frequently 
in direct opposition to his laws. Decree and 
law are not only frequently opposed, in respect 
to the moral action demanded by each, but even 
where those demands are coincident they differ 
greatly in the marine?* and certainty of their 
fulfilment. Of course government, by exert- 
ing decrees, is another thing altogether from 
government by executing laws. But there is 
another kind of government. It is that efficient 
control of a superior, by which a being or an 
act is made to be what it is, in opposition to 
non-existence, or a different existence. Now 
this appears to be precisely the kind of govern- 
ment alluded to when it said, " God executes his 
decrees by powerfully governing all the actions 
of his creatures." That is, he efficiently pro- 
duces and controls all the responsible volitions, 
good and bad, of the moral universe. And what 
is this, but affirming all that the sermon has 
affirmed on this subject? If any one is dis- 
posed to deny that this is a fair exposition of 
the Catechism, let him reflect that as he cannot 
pretend that government here means a legal 
administration, it will be incumbent on him to 
show what other fair construction can be put 
upon it than the one given above ; to show how 
God can execute a secret decree, by his own 
powerful act, in any other way than in the one 
already explained. 

In corroboration of the foregoing views it 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 141 

should also be borne in mind, that the Calvinists 
uniformly use these very same terms, decree, 
•predestination, &c, in the same sense, in reference 
to all events. They say, God's decrees extend 
to all events, physical and moral, good and evil, 
by which they must mean, if they mean any 
thing intelligible, that his predestination bears 
the same relation to all events. If then his 
decree of election embraces the means to the 
accomplishment of the end, so also must his 
decree of reprobation. If his decree of election 
requires for its accomplishment an efficient 
operation, so also does his decree of reprobation. 
If Divine agency is directly and efficiently 
requisite to produce a good volition, it must 
follow that it is in the same sense requisite to 
produce a sinful volition. 

To tell us a thousand times, without any dis- 
tinction or discrimination, that all things are 
equally the result of the Divine decree, and 
then tell us that the relation between God's 
decree and sin is essentially different from the 
relation existing between his decree and holi- 
ness, would certainly be a very singular and 
unwarrantable use of language. How then, I 
inquire, does God produce holy volitions ? — 
Why, say the Calvinists, by a direct, positive, 
and efficient influence upon the will, and in 
proof quote — " Thy people shall be willing in 
the day of thy power." Well, how, I ask again, 
does God execute his decrees respecting unholy 
volitions ? Consistency requires the same reply. 
But, says the Calvinist, he need not exert the 



142 CALVISISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



same influence to produce unholy volitions, 
because it is in accordance with the nature of 
sinful men to sin. Indeed ! and is not this 
nature the result of a decree ? It would seem 
God approaches his work of executing his decree 
respecting sin, either more reluctantly or with 
greater difficulty, so that it requires two steps 
to execute this, and only one the other. It is 
in both cases, however, equally his work. This 
will be seen more clearly if we turn our atten- 
tion to the first sin ; for it is certainly as much 
against a perfectly holy nature to commit sin, 
as it is against an unholy nature to have a holy 
volition. Hence the one as much requires a 
direct and positive influence as the other, and 
therefore the passage in the 110th Psalm, if it 
applies at all to a positive Divine influence in 
changing the will, must have a much more ex- 
tensive meaning, than has been generally 
supposed. It should be paraphrased thus : — 
Not only shall thy elect people, who are yet in 
their sins, and therefore not yet in a strict and 
proper sense thine, be made willing to become 
holy in the day that thou dost efficiently change 
their will, but also thy angels and thy first cre- 
ated human pair, who were before their fall more 
truly thine, as they were made perfectly holy, shall 
be made willing to become unholy in the day 
that thou dost efficiently change their wills 
from submission to rebellion. For if Divine 
efficiency is necessary to make a naturally 
perverse will holy, it is also necessary to make 
a naturally holy will perverse. 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 143 

I am aware that we may be met here by this 
reply, that although God does efficiently control 
the will, still it is in a way suited to the nature 
of mind, and consistent with free agency, because 
he operates upon the mind through the influence 
of moral suasion, or by the power of motives* 
To this it may be answered, that the Calvinists 
generally condemn Dr. Taylor's views of 
conversion, because they suspect him of holding 
that motives alone convert the sinner ; whereas 
they deem it necessary that the Holy Spirit 
should act directly upon the will ; if so, then, 
as I have shown above, it is also necessary 
that there should be a direct Divine influence 
upon the will of a holy being, to make him 
sinful. And this more especialty, since both 
changes are decreed, and both stand in the 
same relation to the Divine purpose. But this 
doctrine of motives leads me to another argu- 
ment, viz. 

3. That the view I have taken of predestina- 
tion is correct, appears evident from the Cal- 
vinistic doctrine of motives, especially when this 
doctrine is viewed in connection with the 
Calvinistic theory of depravity. 

The doctrine of motives I understand to be 
this, that " the power of volition is never excited, 
nor can be, except in the presence and from the 
excitement of motives," (see " Views in The- 
ology,") and that the mind must necessarily be 
swayed by the strongest motive, or by what ap- 
pears to the mind to be the greatest good. Dr. Ed- 
wards, following Leibnitz, incorporated this doc- 



144 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

trine of philosophical necessity with the Calvin- 
istic theology. In this he has heen followed by a 
great portion, I believe, of the Calvinistic clergy. 
Without stopping here to attempt a refutation of 
this theory, my present object is to show that it 
necessarily fastens upon Calvinism the charges 
brought against it, and sustains the definition 
that has been given to predestination. For 
since God creates both the mind and the motives, 
and brings them together for the express purpose 
that the former should be swayed by the latter, 
it follows conclusively that God efficiently controls 
the will, and produces all its volitions. And this 
is according to express Calvinistic teaching : — 
" God," says the author of " Views in Theology," 
already quoted, 44 God is the determiner of per- 
ceptions, and perceptions are the determiners of 
choices." The inference therefore is plain and 
unavoidable, God is the determiner of choices. 
The plea that God does not produce volitions, by 
a direct influence, but indirectly, through second 
causes, avails nothing. Although there should 
be ten, or ten thousand intermediate links, if 
they are all arranged by our Creator in such 
order as to produce the intellectual vibration 
intended, whenever he pleases to give the im- 
pulse, what is the difference? In point of 
efficient agency, none at all. Nor yet will it 
alter the case to say, that 44 this effect is pro- 
duced by God through such a medium as is 
suited to the nature of the mind, and therefore 
it cannot be said, that God does any violence to 
the will, or to man's free agency." God created 



CALVINISTTC CONTROVERSY. 145 

the mind, and the means that were to influence 
it. He gave to mind its nature, and to motives 
their influence and arrangement, for this very 
purpose. Hence, unless man can unmake him- 
self, he is bound by the law of his nature to 
act in all cases as he does. Why talk about a 
free agency when it is such an agency as must, 
by the constitution of God, lead inevitably to sin 
and ruin ! That old, and in the premises, 
foolish reply, that man could do differently, if 
he chose, does not help the case. It is only 
saying, the nature of man is such that it is 
governed by his perceptions, and since " God is 
the determiner of perceptions, and perceptions 
the determiners of choices," whenever God 
pleases to alter the perceptions so as thereby to 
change the choice, then, and not before, man can 
do differently. According to this doctrine is it 
possible, according to the very nature of mind, 
for the choice to be different until the percep- 
tions are changed % And can the perceptions 
be changed, until God changes them? To 
answer either or both of these questions in the 
affirmative, would be to give up the doctrine of 
motives. To answer them in the negative, would 
be to entail upon the doctrine all that I have 
charged upon it. The advocates of the theory 
may have their choice. Nor yet, again, will it 
destroy the force of this argument, to say " man 
has an unholy nature ; and this is the reason 
why the motives presented influence him to sin ; 
therefore the guilt is chargeable upon himself, 
and God is clear. ,, For, in the first place, this 
10 



146 



CALVIXISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



would not account for the first unholy volitions 
of holy angels and the first human pair. 

This argument presupposes that, but for the 
consideration of man's unholy nature, the charge 
against the Calvinistic theory would be valid. 
And inasmuch as here are cases in which the 
argument obviously affords no relief to the 
system, it follows that in these 6ases, at least, 
God is the efficient and procuring cause of 
unholy volitions — and therefore the charges 
against predestination are established. But by 
a little farther attention we shall see that this 
argument affords as little relief to the system 
in the case of man as he now is. For this first 
sin, which was itself the necessary result of 
the Divine arrangement and of positive Divine 
influence, threw, if possible, a stronger and 
a more dire necessity over all the coming gene- 
rations of men. For this act entailed upon man 
a depraved heart. Hence this corrupt nature 
came upon man without his knowledge or 
agency. We trace it back then, thus : — Man's 
love of sin was produced by the unholy choice 
of the first pair — that choice was produced by 
perceptions — these perceptions were produced 
by motives — and these motives were brought by 
God to bear upon the minds which he had made 
for this very purpose — therefore God, by design, 
and because he purposed it, produced our cor- 
rupt nature ; and then, for the express purpose 
of leading that unholy nature to put forth unholy 
volitions, he brings those motives to bear upon 
our minds, which, from the unavoidable nature 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 147 

of those minds, must produce the sin designed. 
It is thus that, according to his theory, our 
Creator binds the human mind by the strong 
cords of depravity with one hand, and with the 
other lashes it, by the maddening scourge of 
motives, into all the excitement of unholy deli- 
rium ; and then, for his own glory, consigns the 
sinner over to the prison house of wo ! ! Turn 
this system, then, as you will, you find this 
doctrine of predestination binding the human 
mind, and efficiently producing all the volitions 
of the moral universe. The strong arm of 
Jehovah not more directly and irresistibly moves 
and binds the planets in their orbits, than it 
moves and controls, in the mysterious circle of 
his eternal decrees, " all the actions of all his 
creatures." 

1 know, as a closing argument, it is urged, 
whatever may be our inferences, we all know 
that we are free, and that we are responsible, 
because we are conscious of it. This is a most 
singular course of reasoning, and seems to have 
been adopted to reconcile contradictions. If 
this doctrine be true, I am not sure that I am 
free, and that I am responsible merely because I 
feel that I am. I am at least quite as conscious 
that I ought not to be held responsible for what 
is unavoidable, as I am that I am possessed of 
moral liberty. Break down my consciousness in 
one case, and you prepare the way for me to 
suspect it of fallacy in another. And if I must 
give up my consciousness, between two alterna- 
tives I will choose that which will not involve 



148 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

the government of God in injustice, and myriads 
of intelligent beings in unavoidable perdition. 
Hence, with Dr. Edwards' premises, which he 
holds in common with Lord Kaimes, I would 
come to his lordship's conclusion, viz. that God 
never intended to hold men responsible, and the 
universal feeling of responsibility is a kind of 
pious fraud — a salutary delusion, imposed as a 
check and restraint upon man here, but to be 
followed by no unpleasant consequences either 
here or hereafter. But this would be charging 
our Creator with both deception and folly — 
deception in the delusive consciousness of re- 
sponsibility, and folly in suffering Lord Kaimes 
and others to disclose the secret, and frustrate 
the Divine purpose ! This cannot be. The 
charge of deception and of fallacy, therefore, 
must be rolled back from consciousness and from 
the throne of God upon the doctrine of predes- 
tination. And if the reaction should crush the 
theory for ever, it would doubtless be a blessing 
to the Church and to the world. 

To conclude. For the reasons given, I must 
still maintain that the charges contained in the 
sermon against that modification of Calvinism 
I am now opposing, are just ; and the definition 
assumed, is correct. If the advocates of the 
system can clear themselves, or their doctrine, 
let it be done. If not, let one of two courses be 
pursued — either let the system be abandoned, or 
let us have it as it is. 

I have dwelt the longer on this subject, be- 
cause I am weary, and I believe we all are, of 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 149 



hearing the oft-repeated complaint, " You mis- 
represent us !" " You mistake our doctrine !" 

In the next No., by the leave of Providence, 
the nature of human agency, and the ground of 
human responsibility, will be examined. 



NUMBER VIII. 

MORAL AGENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY. 

By what has been said on the theory of Cal- 
vinistic predestination, it will be seen, I think, 
that this system involves such necessity of moral 
action as is incompatible with free agency. It is 
possible, I grant, to give to the terms will, liber- 
ty, free agency, such a definition as will make 
these terms, thus defined, compatible with the 
other peculiarities of the Calvinistic system. — 
Both parties agree that man is a free moral 
agent ; both maintain that he is responsible ; but 
we maintain that what the Calvinists call free 
moral agency, is not such in fact as is common- 
ly understood by the term, nor such as is requi- 
site to make man accountable. Here, there- 
fore, we are again thrown back upon our defini- 
tions, as the starting point of argument. What 
is that power, or property, or faculty of the 
mind, which constitutes man a free moral agent ? 
It is the power of choice, connected with liberty 
to choose either good or evil. Both the power 
and liberty to choose either good or evil are re- 
quisite to constitute the free agency of a proba* 



150 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

tioner. It has been contended that choice, 
though from the condition of the moral agent 
it must of necessity be exclusively on one side, 
is nevertheless free ; since it implies a voluntary 
preference of the mind. Hence it is contended 
that the fallen and the holy angels, glorified and 
lost human spirits, though some of these are con- 
fined in an impeccable state, and the others have 
a perpetual and invincible enmity to good, are 
nevertheless free agents. With respect to the 
free agency of these beings, a question might be 
started, whether it is such as renders them 
responsible for their present acts, the decision of 
which might have some bearing on the subject 
under investigation ; but not such bearing as 
would make it important to discuss it here. If 
they are responsible for their present acts, it 
must be on account of a former probation, 
which by sin they have judicially forfeited. Or 
if any one thinks otherwise, and is disposed to 
maintain that a being who is not, and never was 
so circumstanced as to render the choice of good 
possible to him, is nevertheless a free moral agent, 
in any such sense as renders him accountable, 
with such a sentiment at present I have no con- 
troversy. Indeed such an opinion is so violent an 
outrage upon all the acknowledged principles 
of justice, that to controvert it would be a work 
of little profit. 

It is certain that the moral standing of those 
angels and men whose states are now unaltera- 
bly fixed, differs materially from their probation- 
ary state ; and this difference renders their mo- 



CALVrNISTIC CONTROVERSY. 151 

ral agency unsuited to illustrate the agency of 
beings who are on probation. Man, in this life, 
is in a state of trial ; good and evil are presented 
before him as objects of choice ; and upon this 
choice are suspended eternal consequences of 
happiness or misery. Of a being thus circum- 
stanced, it is not enough to say he is free to 
choose as he does, unless you can say, also, he 
is equally free to make an opposite choice. — 
Hence, in defining the free agency of man, as a 
probationer, we say, as above, that it implies a 
power of choice, with full liberty to choose 
either good or evil. 

The foregoing definition, at first view, seems 
sufficient for all practical purposes, and so indeed 
it would have been, if a speculative philosophy 
had not thrown it into the alembic of metaphy- 
sics for decomposition and analysis. It is 
doubtful whether this process has subserved the 
cause of truth ; nay, it is certain, I think, that it 
has produced many perplexing refinements and 
speculations that have greatly aided the cause 
of error. Into these abstrusities, therefore, it 
seems necessary to follow this question, to try, 
if possible, to draw out and combine the ele- 
ments of truth. 

Having defined free agency to mean the "power 
of choice, &c, it is asked again, What is this 
fower of choice ? It is probable that the differ- 
ent answers given to this question constitute 
the fundamental differences between Calvinists 
and Arminians. To the above question some, 
like the reply of the Jews to Christ, have said, 



152 CALVIIS'ISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

" We cannot tell." And they give this evasive 
reply perhaps for a reason similar to that which 
influenced the Jews ; they fear that a definite 
answer will involve themselves or their theory in 
difficulty. This is a very convenient way to avoid 
responsibility, but not indicative of much fair- 
ness, or confidence in their cause. When men 
have involved their system in apparent contra- 
dictions, it will hardly satisfy the candid inqui- 
rer after truth to see them start aside from the 
very point that is to give character to their 
whole system. We are told by men who reason 
upon foreknowledge, &c, that " God hath de- 
creed whatsoever comes to pass ;" and then we 
are told that all men are free, and they enter into 
a great deal of metaphysical speculation about 
foreknowledge, the nature of voluntary action, &c, 
to prove these positions ; but when they are 
pressed upon this point, " How can you recon-, 
cile with free agency that kind of Divine effi- 
ciency necessary to secure the execution of the 
decrees, and that kind of dependency of moral 
agents which this efficiency implies ?" the reply 
is, " We cannot tell — the how in the case we 
cannot explain." This evasion might be allow- 
able, perhaps, in either of the two following 
cases : 1. If the apparent discrepancy of the 
two positions grew out of what is mysterious, 
and not of what is palpably contradictory ; or, 2. 
If both propositions were so clearly proved, that 
it would do greater violence to our reasons, and 
be a greater outrage upon all acknowledged prin- 
ciples of belief, to disbelieve either of them, thaa 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY, 153 

it would to believe them with all their apparent 
contradictions. With respect to the first alter-, 
native, it appears to me, and doubtless it would 
so appear to all whose prejudices did not mislead 
the mind, that the want of apparent agreement be- 
tween the two is not for lack of light in the case, but 
from the natural incongruity of the things com- 
pared. When you say, " God executes his de- 
crees by efficiently controlling the will of man," 
and say also, " The mind of man is free," both 
these propositions are clear ; there is nothing 
mysterious about them. But you say, perhaps, 
" The mystery is in the want of light to see the 
agreement of the two ; we cannot see their agree- 
ment, but we should not therefore infer that they 
do not agree." I answer, What is light, in this 
case, but a clear conception of the propositions ? 
This we have, and we see that they are, in their 
Tjature, incompatible ; and the more light you 
can pour upon this subject, the more clearly 
must this incompatibility appear. If you say 
that " perhaps neither you nor I fully understand 
the meaning of these propositions;" then I 
reply, We have no business to use them. " Who 
is this that darkens counsel by words without 
knowledge ?" And this is what I have already 
complained of ; men will reason themselves into 
propositions which they call doctrinal facts, but 
which seem to the eye of common sense to have 
all the characteristics of contradictions, and 
when we urge these contradictions in objection, 
the objection is not allowed to have any weighty 
because we do not fully understand the proposi* 



154 CALVIXISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

tions. So then the propositions must be received, 
though we do not understand them ! and though, 
as far as we do understand them, they are obvi- 
ously incompatible ! ! Is this the way to gain 
knowledge, and to make truth triumphant ? 
How much more consistent to say, Since it is 
evident the mind is free, and since the doc- 
trine of predestination is apparently incompatible 
with that freedom, therefore this doctrine should 
be exploded! 

Or will this second alternative be resorted to ? 
Will it be said that both of these propositions are 
so clearly proved, that to deny them would do 
greater violence to our reasons, and the princi- 
ples of belief, than to acknowledge them, not- 
withstanding their apparent incongruity ? Let us 
examine them. Of one of them we cannot 
doubt, unless .we doubt all primary truths, viz. 
That the human mind is free. It is presumed, 
if the question come to this, that they must either 
give up human liberty or the dogma of predes- 
tination, candid Calvinists themselves would not 
hesitate ; they would say, the former must 
stand, whatever becomes of the latter. If I am 
correct here, it follows that, predestinarians 
themselves being judges, the doctrine of predes- 
tination is not so clear as some other moral 
truths. But is there any thing clearer than that 
man ought not to be held accountable for what 
is unavoidable ? that he ought not to be held to 
answer for volitions that are efficiently controlled 
by a superior ? To me this is as clear as con- 
sciousness itself can make it, and I think it must 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 155 

be to mankind in general. If I am correct, 
then we come to the conclusion at once, that to 
believe in the compatibility of predestination 
with human liberty and accountability does more 
violence to the laws of belief than it would to 
discard predestination. Whatever, therefore, 
may seem to be favourable to this doctrine, 
should be sacrificed to a stronger claim upon our 
belief in another direction. But, that the argu- 
ment may be set in as strong light as possible, 
let the evidence of predestination be adduced. 
What is it ? It is not consciousness certainly ; 
and it is almost as clear that it is not moral de- 
monstration by a course of reasoning. The most 
I believe that has ever been said, in the way of 
moral demonstration, has been in an argument 
founded on foreknowledge, which argument, it is 
supposed by the author, is fairly disposed of in 
the sermon on predestination, by reasoning 
which has not, to his knowledge, ever been 
refuted. A refutation has been attempted, I 
grant, by some of the reviewers of the sermon, 
but the only apparent success that attended those 
attempts was, as we have already seen, in con- 
sequence of their taking the very ground of the 
sermon, and building the decrees of God upon 
a prior view and knowledge of all possible con- 
tingencies. If consciousness and reasoning are 
taken away from this doctrine, it has nothing left 
to stand upon but testimony. And no testimony 
but Divine will here be of any authority ; and 
does revelation prove this doctrine ? In the ser» 
mon on predestination it was stated that " there 



156 CALVIMSTIC CONTROVERSY. 

was not a single passage in the Bible which 
teaches directly that God hath foreordained 
whatsoever comes to pass ;" and it is not known 
to the writer, that among the different reviews 
of the sermon it has even been attempted to 
show that the statement was incorrect. But if 
a solitary passage could have been adduced, 
should we not have heard of it ? The evidence 
from Scripture then, if there is any, is indirect, 
and merely by inference. And even this indi- 
rect testimony is far from being the best of its 
kind ; so, at least, a great portion of believers in 
revelation think. 

Now, candid reader, if you have carefully 
followed the chain of thought thus far, let me 
ask you to pause and propound for yourself, and 
honestly answer the following question — " Is 
there so much evidence in favour of predesti- 
nation, that I should do more violence to my 
own reason, and the laws of belief, by rejecting 
it, than I should by believing that this doctrine is 
compatible with free agency and accountability ?" 
Indeed, Calvinists themselves have so felt the 
force of these difficulties, when the terms pre- 
destination and free will have been understood 
in their common and obvious sense, that they 
have attempted a variety of explanations of these 
terms to do away, if possible, the apparent dis- 
crepancy. These attempts have been the prin- 
cipal cause of those changes and modifications 
in the Calvinistic system, alluded to in a former 
number. The various explanetions and defini- 
tions that have been given to foreordination, 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 157 

have already been noticed. We have seen how 
every effort failed of affording any relief to the 
system, until we came down to the last ; I mean 
that of the New-Haven divines. This new the- 
ory does indeed avoid the difficulty, but avoids 
it only by giving up the doctrine ! Any thing 
short of this amounts to nothing ; it stands forth 
still the " absolute decree" fixed as fate, and 
fixing, strong as fate, all the acts of subordinate 
intelligences. Any real modification of it is a 
virtual renunciation, and a substitution in its 
stead of the public and consistent decree of Hea- 
ven, " He that believeth shall be saved ; he that 
belie veth not shall be damned." 

Not succeeding as was hoped in such a defi- 
nition of predestination as would harmonize the 
opposing propositions, repeated trials have been 
made to define and explain human liberty and 
the power of choice, so as to bend these into a 
coincidence with the inflexible decree. This 
brings us back to the inquiry started above : 
"What is this power of choice ?" Now as this 
is a point more metaphysical in its nature 
than the proposition embracing the decrees, so 
there is more ground for laboured argument and 
refined speculation. Only one theory, however, 
needs to be particularly noticed : — I. Because 
it is the most plausible of any other, so that if 
this will not bear the test, it is probable no other 
will ; and 2. Because this is the theory which is 
now pretty generally, and perhaps almost uni- 
versally adopted by the Calvinists ; I mean the 
Calvinistic doctrine of motives. It is in sub- 



158 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

stance this : the power of choice is that power 
which the mind has of acting in view of motives, 
and of deciding according to the strongest mo- 
tive. The strength and direction of volition are 
always in accordance with the motive. And this 
relation between mind and motives is fixed by 
the very constitution of our natures, so that it 
may be said there is a constitutional necessity 
that the mind should be controlled by motives. 
These motives are multitudinous and various. — 
All conceptions and perceptions of the mind, 
from whatever cause, productive of pleasure or 
pain, exciting emotions of love or aversion, are 
motives ; or, more properly, perhaps, the causes 
of these mental states are motives. Between 
these motives and the mind there is such a con- 
nection, that the former not only excite, but 
control the latter, in all its volitions. The na- 
ture of this relation is of course beyond the 
limits of human investigation : all we can say 
is, such is the nature of motives and of mind. 
Such is the theory. The arguments by which it 
is defended are in substance the following — 
experience and observation. We are conscious, 
it is said, of acting from motives, and it is uni- 
versally understood that others also act from 
motives. It is on this principle that we govern 
ourselves in our intercourse with men ; by this 
we calculate with moral certainty, in many in- 
stances, what will be the conduct of a man in 
a given case ; and, upon such calculations, we 
form most of our maxims, and rules of conduct 
in social life : nay, it is said a man that will 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 159 

act without a reason must be insane — that, on 
this ground, whenever a man acts it is common 
to inquire what induced him. What motive had 
he ? That even children, at a very early age 
so readily recognize this principle, that they are 
constantly inquiring why do you do this or that. 
Such are the strongest arguments by which this 
theory is sustained — arguments too strong it is 
supposed to be overthrown. 

I object to the sovereign control of the mind 
by motives. But in offering my objections, it 
should first be observed that no man, in his 
senses, it is presumed, will deny that motives 
have an important influence in determining our 
volitions. Nor is it necessary, in order to op- 
pose the doctrine of the controlling power of 
motives, to deny that the power of volition may 
have been waked up to action, in the first in- 
stance, by motive influence, or that the mind ever 
after may, in all its volitions, be more or less 
under this influence. As these are points which 
do not materially affect the question at issue be- 
tween us and the Calvinists, they may be left out 
of the discussion for the present. The question is 
this — Has the mind a self-determining power, by 
w 7 hich it can spontaneously decide, independent of 
the control of motives, or is the mind absolutely 
controlled by motives 1 We maintain the for- 
mer — our opponents the latter. By establishing 
our position, we disprove theirs — by disproving 
theirs we establish ours — and it is believed that 
theirs can be directly disproved, and ours directly 
established ; at least so far as we can hope to 



180 



CALVEN'ISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



arrive at demonstration on these extremely diffi- 
cult points. 

1. My first objection to this doctrine of mo- 
tive influence is, that most of the arguments by 
which it is defended, as directly and certainly 
prove that the Divine mind is subject to the ab- 
solute control of motives as that human minds 
are. It is argued, that to maintain the doctrine 
of spontaneous volition, independent of the con- 
trol of motives, involves the absurdity, that " our 
volitions are excited without any intelligent rea- 
sons whatever, and as the effect, consequently, 
of nothing better than a mere brute or senseless 
mechanism." (Views in Theology, p. 163.) — 
Now if this has any bearing on the question, it 
relates not to human mind and human volition 
merely, but to mind in general, and must apply 
to the Divine mind. The same may be said, in 
fact, of most of the arguments that are brought 
in favour of this doctrine. Calvinists are con- 
vinced of this — and hence this also is a part of 
their creed. It was defended by Dr. Edwards, 
and is thus avowed by Professor Upham, in his 
System of Mental Philosophy. Speaking of the 
control of motives, he says, " Our condition, in 
this respect, seems to be essentially the same 
with that of the Supreme Being himself — he is 
inevitably governed in all his doings, by what, 
in the great range of events, is wisest and best." 
(Vol. ii, p. 381.) Thus the Divine Being is, 
according to this theory, and by the express 
showing of the leading advocates of the theory, 
" inevitably" made a subordinate to a superior. 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 161 

It is believed there is no avoiding this concliu 
sion ; and what then ? Why then the doctrine 
makes God a necessary agent, and leads to athe- 
ism ! It is nearly ^ if not exactly the same as the 
old heathen doctrine of fate* The ancient hea- 
thens supposed that Jupiter himself, the omnipo- 
tent father of the gods and men, must yield to 
fate* Modern Christians teach that there is a 
certain fitness of things, certain constitutional 
relations, existing independent of the Divine 
will, which God himself cannot supersede, but 
to which he must yield. How does this sink, at 
once, both the natural and moral perfections of 
God ! The exercises of his wisdom and good-^ 
ness are nothing more than the result of certain 
fixed and irresistible influences* Fixed not by 
God himself, for that would be to give up the 
doctrine ; for in that case, in the order of cause 
and effect, the Divine mind must have acted 
without control of motive, if this law of motive 
influence did not exist until the Divine volition 
willed it into being : and if he could once act 
independent of this control, he might so act for 
ever ; and the argument built on the absurdity 
of volition, without an intelligent reason, is con* 
tradicted. But if that argument has any weight, 
it fixes, in the order of cause and effect, a para- 
mount influence eternally antecedent to the 
exercise of the Divine mind, and controlling that 
mind with irresistible sway. This is fate ! This 
is atheism ! Once set up an influence that 
controls the Divine mind, call that influence 
what you will, fitness of things — -fate~-energtf 
11 



162 CALVOISTIC CONTROVERSY 

of nature — or necessary relation, and that mo- 
ment you make God a subordinate ; you hurl 
him from his throne of sovereignty, and make 
him the instrument of a superior. Of what use 
is such a Deity ? Might we not as well have 
none ! Nay better, as it seems to me, if under 
the control of his own native influence he is led 
to create beings susceptible of suffering, and fix 
the relations of those beings to the motives 
around them such, that by a law of their nature 
they are " inevitably" led to sin and endless 
wo ! Is it to be wondered at, that many Cal- 
vinists have become infidels ? This doctrine of 
motives is the very essence of the system of 
Spinoza, whose deity was the energy of nature ! 
The supreme controlling power of Dr. Ed- 
wards and his followers is the energy of motives, 
which exists in the nature of things, anterior to 
the will of God. Can any one point out any 
essential difference between the two systems ? 

Such are the objections to any arguments in 
favour of the doctrine that motives " inevitably" 
control the volitions of intelligent beings in gene- 
ral, involving of course the highest intelligence. 
But if any are disposed to give up this doctrine, 
as essential to intelligent volition in general, and 
choose to maintain it only in respect to the vo- 
litions of some particular intelligent beings ; 
then they must give up all the strongest of their 
arguments. If God is free from this control, 
they must acknowledge also, or give some rea- 
son for their dissent, that he may, if he chooses, 
make and sustain subordinate intelligences, hav 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 168 

ing the same freedom from this control ; and if 
they acknowledge that there is nothing in the 
nature of the case that renders this an impossi- 
bility, then they must show, if they can, that 
though God might constitute beings otherwise, 
he has so constituted man as to render him inca- 
pable of choice, except when and as motives 
direct, by an inevitable influence. But in 
attempting this they must meet other difficulties 
in their course, which, it is believed, will greatly 
embarrass the system. These difficulties, how- 
ever, together with the arguments which I de- 
sign to advance directly in favour of the opposite 
view, must be reserved for another number. 

NUMBER IX. 

MORAL AGENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY, 
CONTINUED. 

Another argument against the Cah inistic 
doctrine of motives is, that it leads to material- 
ism. The doctrine, it will be recollected, is this : 
When the mind is brought into connection with 
objects of choice, it is inevitably led, by a law 
of its nature, to the selection of one rather than 
of the other, unless there is a perfect equality 
between them ; in which case I suppose, of 
course, the mind must remain in equilibrium ; 
for if it moves only by the influence of motives, 
and to the same degree and in the same direc- 
tion with motive influence, of course when it is 
equally attracted in opposite directions it must be 



164 CALVIXISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

at rest! It is on this ground that Leibnitz main- 
tained that God could not make two particles of 
matter in all respects alike ; because, in that case, 
being " inevitably" governed by motives in his 
decisions, he could not determine where to place 
them, both having the same influence on his 
mind for a location in the same place ! The 
same writer represents this motive influence, 
also, as frequently imperceptible, but not the less 
effectual, and not the less voluntary ! And to 
illustrate it makes the following comparison: — 
" It is as if a needle, touched with a loadstone, 
were sensible of and pleased with its turning 
to the north, for it would believe that it turned 
itself independent of any other cause, not per- 
ceiving the insensible motions of the magnetic 
power." This statement of Leibnitz, who had 
paid great attention to this philosophical theory, 
is important in several respects. It is, in the 
first place, an acknowledgment that consciousness 
is against the doctrine ; and it is also a conces- 
sion that the mind is imposed upon, in this matter, 
by the Creator. But with respect to the argu- 
ment, that this doctrine leads to materialism, 
this quotation is important, because it shows that 
one of the most philosophical, if not one of the 
most evangelical of the defenders of this doc- 
trine, considered the law of motive influence 
similar to the law of magnetic attraction, differ- 
ing only in being accompanied by sensation 
and a deceptive consciousness. And what says 
its great evangelical champion in this country, 
Dr. Edwards ] He compares our volitions to 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 165 

the vibrations of a scale beam, the different ends 
of which are respectively elevated or depressed 
as the opposite weights may chance to vary. 
What is this but teaching that motions of mind 
are governed by the same fixed laws as those of 
matter, and that volitions are perfectly mechanical 
states of mind? What the advocates of this 
doctrine charge on the opposite theory belongs, 
by their own showing, to their own system. — 
They, not we, make choices the result of animal 
instinct, or senseless mechanism. I know Pro- 
fessor Stuart, in his late exposition of the Romans, 
seems to reprobate these comparisons ; and while 
he contends, as I should think, as strenuously as 
Dr. Edwards, for a complete and efficient con- 
trol of the Divine Being over all our volitions, 
he appears to think that there is a great differ- 
ence between the laws of intellectual and mate- 
rial action. So, indeed, do we think. But we 
think that difference consists in the mind's being 
free from that control for which the professor 
contends ; and we believe when he contends for 
that control in the volitions of the mind, he con- 
tends for that which, from the nature of the case, 
entirely destroys the other part of his hypothe- 
sis, viz. that the operations of the mind are free, 
and essentially different from mechanical mo- 
tion or the laws of attractive influence in the 
material world. If the attractive power of mo- 
tives over the mind is any thing different from 
the law of gravitation or magnetic attraction, 
what is that difference ? Should any one say, 
I cannot tell ; I ask then. How does he know 



166 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

but it is that very power for which Arminians 
contend ? Most probably it is that power. Or 
will it be said, the difference between mo- 
tive influence and gravity is consciousness? I 
reply, Consciousness is no part of the relation 
between motives and the power of choice. I 
see not indeed how it affects that relation at all. 
And this the comparison of Leibnitz, already 
alluded to, clearly illustrates. Look at that 
flowing stream ; it hastens on most freely, and by 
the law of its own nature down the gentle decli- 
vities or more precipitous slopes of its meander- 
ing channel. Suppose now that Omnipotence 
should impart consciousness to the particles of 
the continuous current, it would then wake up to 
perceive the action and feel the pleasure of its 
own delightful motions. It would roll on still 
by the law of its own nature, and would feel that 
it was free to move according to its own inclina- 
tion and voluntary tendency, for its will would 
of course be in the direction of its motive, or in 
other phrase, its gravitating influence. But 
could it turn its course and roll back its waters 
to their fountains ? It could if it was so inclined. 
But its present inclination is toward the bottom 
of the valley or the bosom of the ocean, and 
thither, by the relation that exists between its 
particles and the gravitating influence of the 
earth, it rolls on with the utmost freedom, though 
with the utter impossibility of changing its own 
course, without an inversion of the gravitating 
power. Let the hand of Omnipotence invert the 
slope of the mountain, and lo ! with the same 



CALVIjSISTIC controversy. 167 

freedom these very waters roll back again to 
their original fountains ! Thus it is with the 
human mind. It is conscious of being free to 
move in the direction of its inclinations, but re- 
quire it to turn its course and move in the cur- 
rent of its volitions, in an opposite direction, and 
it would be utterly impossible, until Omnipotence 
himself should change the motive influence. — 
" God is the determiner of perceptions, and per- 
ceptions are the determiners of choices." 

We see, therefore, that this doctrine of motive 
influence leads to materialism, for it makes 
the analogy between mental and material 
action so complete that it destroys all idea of 
intellectual power. Philosophically speaking, 
there is no power in the laws of nature. What 
we express by the power of attraction, or repul- 
sion, or decomposition, is nothing more than the 
uniformity of the Divine agency. Does the 
earth attract elevated bodies to its surface ? — 
This is not an energy inherent in nature ; it is 
the God of nature acting by a uniform law. 
This is all that anv intelligent man can mean 
by the power of nature. We, however, use the 
word power in an accommodated sense in these 
cases, but always I think in connection with that 
portion of matter that appears to act, and not 
that which is acted upon. The magnet, we 
say, has power to attract iron, because iron is 
attracted toward the magnet, and not the mag- 
net toward the iron. The antecedent, or that 
which takes the lead in the motion, is more pro- 
perly said to have the power, or is the efficient 



168 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

cause. If then we allow of the use of the term 
power at all, to express the relation of cause 
and effect, growing out of a philosophical con- 
stitution of things, the term should be applied to 
the antecedent, and not to the consequent. In 
the case before us, mental action is not the 
cause of the motive, but the motive is the cause 
of the mental action : therefore we should say 
motives have power to act upon the mind, and the 
mind has a susceptibility of being acted upon. 
Dr. Reid has well observed, that a power to be 
acted upon is no power, or " it is a powerless 
power" which is philosophically absurd. There- 
fore we come to the conclusion that the mind 
has no power of choice, but has a susceptibility 
of being drawn into a state called volition by 
the power of motives. It will avail nothing, as 
I conceive, to say that there is evidently a dif- 
ference between the susceptibility of the mind 
in this case, and the susceptibility of matter in 
other cases, unless it be shown what that differ- 
ence is ; for when that difference is pointed out, 
it will doubtless be found to be what is in direct 
opposition to the motive theory. It is the mis- 
fortune of the Calvinistic system that it often has 
to assume positions to keep itself in countenance, 
which positions themselves are a virtual aban- 
donment of the system. So the New -Haven 
divines have done to support predestination, and 
to this all Calvinists are driven in their at- 
tempts to reconcile free will, or the power of 
choice, with their doctrine of motives, depend, 
ence, &c a 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 169 



We may be told in the ease before us, that 
" when the mind is acted upon it is then excited 
to action.'* But how excited to action ? Is the 
action any stronger than the motive influence ? — 
Is it carried beyond this influence ? or in a dif- 
ferent direction ? To answer any one of these 
questions in the affirmative is to give up the 
theory ; but to answer them in the negative is 
to attribute to the mind nothing more than the 
inertia of matter. The motives are (under God) 
the agent, the mind is the passive object, and the 
volition is the effect. Can any one say then, on 
this theory, that the mind has the power of 
choice 1 It has no power in the first place, be- 
cause its volitions are the result of philosophical 
necessity ; and it has no power, secondly, be- 
cause it is not the cause of its own volitions, but 
in these volitions it is the passive subject of 
foreign influences. Now, so far as moral action 
is concerned, how does this differ from material- 
ism ? It is true mental action differs from ma- 
terial action in some associated circumstances ; 
it is accompanied by consciousness ; but as con- 
sciousness of itself cannot give accountability, 
and as it gains nothing in this respect by being 
associated with such kind of mental action as 
results from philosophical necessity, it appears 
plain that man is not accountable ; and if not 
accountable, it is more than probable that he has 
no future existence, and thus again we are driven 
to materialism and to deism, if not to atheism. 

That man is not accountable upon the princi- 
ple we are opposing, might have been made a dis* 



170 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

tinct argument ; but I have connected it with the 
argument that this doctrine leads to materialism 
because they imply each other. If materialism 
is true, we are not accountable, and if we are not 
accountable, materialism is probably true ; and 
both are true, as I conceive, if the Calvinistic 
doctrine of motives is true. 

It may, however, be urged by the advocates 
of this theory, that the mind is no-t wholly pas. 
sive, because we are conscious of putting forth 
a mental energy and making a responsible voli- 
tion ; that I am ready to grant, but then our con- 
sciousness is a fallacy if this system be true ; and 
on the contrary, if consciousness be true, this 
system is false. I believe no one who pays 
attention to his own mind will doubt of having 
this consciousness. But does that prove the 
truth of this theory ? It is one thing to be con- 
scious of having this energy of mind and respon- 
sible volition, and another to be conscious that 
the theory in question is true ; indeed this con- 
sciousness destroys the theory. 

Should it be urged in opposition to the alleged 
tendency of this system to materialism, that dif- 
ferent minds are not uniformly influenced by the 
same motives, nor the same minds at different 
times, and therefore, in this respect, it is evident 
that the laws of mind and of matter differ ; I 
reply, It is precisely so with matter ; for that 
attracts or repels according to its different mag- 
netic or electrical states ; or should it be urged 
that mind differs from matter, and shows itself 
to be possessed of a peculiar energy, because 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 171 

it has power to suspend its decisions, to review 
the subject, to investigate, &c ; I answer, this 
it cannot do without a motive ; and this it must 
do if the motive preponderate in that direction, 
but not otherwise. 

To have a proper view of this subject let us 
go back to the first perception. Could the 
mind, according to this doctrine, act otherwise 
than in coincidence with the motive influence 
of this perception ; or could it even suspend the 
volition this influence was calculated to produce, 
until a second and more powerful motive was 
introduced ? If it could, then this doctrine is 
false ; if it could not, then the mind, like matter 
put in motion, must move on invariably in the 
same direction, and with the same velocity of 
thought for ever, or until a new motive should 
counteract the influence of the former! This is 
emphatically the vis inertia of matter. The 
bare statement of which seems sufficient to over- 
throw the theory. 

Another objection to this doctrine of motives 
is, it leads to the notion of regeneration by moral 
suasion merely. There has been much said of 
late, by the various writers in the old and the 
new school, on this point. The new school are 
charged with holding that the truth alone, with- 
out any immediate agency of the Holy Spirit, 
converts the sinner. This is considered by the 
old school Calvinists as a fatal error. But why 
so ? If motives govern the mind, with absolute 
sway, all you need to convert a sinner, is to 
bring a motive strong enough to induce him to 



172 CALVIXISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

choose God as his chief good, and he is con* 
verted. Until you do this there is no conversion. 
It is impossible for the Holy Ghost to convert a 
sinner in any other way than by motives, for 
choice of good we are told is conversion ; there 
is no choice without a motive, and the strongest 
motive governs choice absolutely ; therefore 
motive is the omnipotent power that changes the 
sinner's heart. This is the legitimate result of 
the Calvinistic premises. We have more than 
once had occasion to wonder that Calvinists 
.should revolt at the result of their own doctrines ; 
here we have another instance of it ; here too 
we have the enigma of " natural ability" unrid- 
dled. The human mind, by the constitution of 
its nature, has the power of choosing according 
to the influence of the strongest motive ; and 
therefore, so far as this can be called a power, 
it has the natural power to convert itself; and 
this is the reason why " make you a new heart" 
is the burden of almost every sermon and ex- 
hortation in modern preaching ; all the sinner 
has to do is to choose, in view of motives, and he 
is converted. And here, too, is unravelled that 
other mystery which we have been so puzzled 
to understand, viz. that although all possess the 
natural power to convert themselves, yet no man 
ever did convert himself without the special inter- 
position of the Divine agency ; for, observe, God 
keeps the motives in his own hands ; " God is 
the determiner of perceptions, and perceptions 
are the determiners of choices that is, of con- 
versions ; for to choose in a particular way, is 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 173 



to be converted. * Whenever, therefore, he is 
disposed to let the sinner convert himself, ac- 
cording to his natural power ; that is, when he is 
disposed to overpower the mind by an irresistible 
motive, he brings the motive and mind in con- 
tact, and it is done. Thus the sinner has as 
much power to convert himself as he has to re- 
solve to eat when he is hungry ; for all the 
power he has to do either, is a susceptibility of 
being operated upon, and controlled by the 
strongest motive ; and thus you see, also, that 
God converts the sinner, because he supplies the 
motive that influences the choice ; and here, too, 
is seen the occasion for misquoting so frequently 
and misapplying so universally, that passage in the 
Psalms : " [My] people shall be [made] willing 
in the day of [my] power." That is, when God ap- 
plies the controlling motive to influence to a right 
choice, then shall the sinner, by a law of his na- 
ture, become willing to be converted. Such are 
the wonderful philosophical discoveries of mo- 
dern theology ! This is the way for man to- 
con vert himself by natural power, and this is the 
way for God to convert him, without the aid of 
swper-natural power ! Well might a divine of 
this cast, whom I heard preach not long since, 
say of regeneration, " There is nothing supernatu- 
ral or miraculous in it." For surely it is one 
of the most natural things in the world, accord- 
ing to this theory, to be converted. It is only to 
be operated upon by a motive, according to the 
law of his natural constitution, and the man is 
converted. 



174 



CALVKUSTIC CONTROVERSY. 



This philosophy of Chrisimn experience has 
led modern orthodoxy to the very borders of 
natural religion. Another step, and we can do 
without a Holy Ghost or a Divine Saviour. We 
will set down with the philosopher in his study, 
and work out a religious experience, as philoso- 
phically as a skilful casuist can solve a question 
of morals ; we will show the rationale of the 
whole process, and demonstrate it so clearly, 
that infidels shall lose all their objections to the 
Gospel, and be induced to " submit" to God with 
scarcely a change of theory. Hereafter let no man 
say, that the work of regeneration is a mystery— 
that in this work we cannot tell whence the regen- 
erating influence comes, or whither it goes ; for it 
comes through the philosophical channel of mo- 
tive influence by which it introduces a " govern- 
ing purpose" into the mind, and the work is done. 
Let no man hereafter say that his " faith stands 
not in the wisdom of man, but in the power of 
God ;" or " if any man would be wise let him 
become a fool that he may be wise 5" or " the 
wisdom of man is foolishness with God for lo, 
the philosophy of regeneration is at length ex- 
plained ! and the whole secret is found to con- 
sist in the philosophical relation between mo- 
tives and mind ! ! Can any one wonder, after 
this, that in Geneva, in Germany, and in New- 
England, Calvinism has finally resulted in Soci- 
nianism ? And can any one help trembling for 
a large portion of the orthodox Churches among 
us at the present day ? Grant that there is an 
increase of zeal, a greater stir among the pco- 



CALVINISTIC CONTBOVEKSY. 175 

pie, more revivals, &c ; all these, with a good 
foundation, would promise well for the Church ; 
but we fear there is a worm at the root. By 
this it is not intended to insinuate that the work 
is always spurious and the professed conversions 
unsound. In many instances it is undoubtedly 
the reverse of this. It might be expected after 
the people had been lulled tor a long time under 
the paralyzing opiates of old-fashioned Calvin- 
ism, that this new and apparently opposite theo- 
ry should rouse many to action. " I had been 
taught," said a man not far from this, "that I 
must wait God's time to be converted, and I 
waited many years in vain ; but more recently I 
have been instructed that I might convert my- 
self ; I set about the work, and I believe it is 
done !" Now this, which in the relation bor- 
ders upon the ludicrous, might have been a ge- 
nuine conversion. His new views might only 
have been sufficient to arouse him to a co-opera- 
tion with the Holy Spirit in his conversion ; and 
this may have been the case with thousands. In 
their 'practical effects two opposite errors may, 
in individual cases, neutralize each other. — 
But is either therefore safe 1 Will the general 
effect be salutary? Let the history of the 
Church speak ; and in view of that record I con- 
fess I fear for our common Zion. But let not 
the old Calvinists lay this blame, and charge this 
danger upon the new school ; the new school 
doctrine is a legitimate scion from that root 
which they have cultivated with such assiduity 
and care. It grows out of the doctrine of mo- 



176 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

tives, it springs from the idea of the entire de- 
pendence of the human mind for each and all its 
volitions upon the directing influence of Omni- 
potence, whatever may be the theory by which 
that influence is explained. 

Another argument in opposition to this doc- 
trine is found in the consideration, that we are 
constantly liable to disappointment in most of 
our calculations respecting human agents. — 
Though we may judge something of what will 
be the conduct of men in given circumstances, yet 
our calculations are very far from coming up to 
mechanical exactness. Motives have some 
influence, but that influence is very variable and 
uncertain. Why is this ? It is not so in mat- 
ter; the same causes will produce the same 
effects to the end of time. But we see many 
choose, without being able to give what, in their 
own estimation, is a valid reason ; they did thus 
because they chose to do so ; they act in defi- 
ance of the strongest motives, drawn from what- 
ever source. We see the greatest possible 
caprice in the volitions of men ; we see their 
minds starting aside, and putting on the greatest 
possible and unaccountable mental states, in a 
way and form that baffles all human calculation, 
and will for ever baffle it. A man may spend 
all his life in trying to reduce to uniformity the 
phenomena of human volitions, and thereby to 
fix, in an unerring code, the laws that govern 
them, and he may hand his labours to his succes- 
sor, and so on to the end of time, and after all, that 
living, spontaneous, thought-producing essence 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 177 

which we call the human soul, will slide from 
our grasp and elude all our calculations. If 
this consideration should have no direct weight 
in opposition to the theory I am opposing, it will 
at least show the absurdity of defending this 
system by what is called the knovm regularity 
and uniform phenomena of human volitions. To 
talk of uniformity here, is to talk of, to say the 
least, what does not exist. 

In the examination of this subject, we find that 
the arguments in favour of the motive theory 
are generally of the negative kind ; they are not 
so much direct proofs of the truth of the theory, 
as they are attempts to show the absurdity of 
denying it. But when statements of this kind 
are accompanied by no arguments, they need 
only be met by a denial. " We are conscious," 
say the theorists, " of being controlled by mo- 
tives :" I reply, we are not conscious of this 
control, but we are conscious of the contrary 
fact. We know, indeed, that motives have their 
influence ; but we know also that the mind has 
an influence over motives, and probably a greater 
influence than motives have over it. The mind 
is conscious too of having an influence over 
itself, and of possessing a self-directing energy, 
a spontaneous power, and its consciousness of 
responsibility is predicated on this power of 
spontaneity. Only let the mind become clearly 
conscious that motives beyond its power and 
influence have an irresistible power in control- 
ling its decisions, and you would as certainly 
remove from man all sense of responsibility, 
12 



178 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY 

as in those cases now, where the spasmodic 
motion of the muscle is not the result of the 
will. 

It is said again, that to deny this control " in- 
volves the absurdity that our volitions are exerte 
without any intelligent reasons, and are th~ 
result of a brute or senseless mechanism." 
appears to me, however, that a system whic 
represents the will as mechanically governed b 
motives, as weights turn the scale beam, make 
man a machine ; while the theory that give 
the mind a spontaneous power and energy of it 
own, makes him what he is, an intelligent, re 
sponsible agent* 

Since, then, these negative arguments in favou 
of the theory that motives control the mind, art 
assertions and not proofs ; and since the theor} 
itself leads to fate, to atheism, to materialism, it 
conversion by mere moral suasion, to the sub 
version of human liberty and moral responsibility 
we must believe the theory false. But against 
the theory of the spontaneous power of the 
mind, none of these objections lie. It accords 
too with consciousness ; and is, in fact, the only 
theory on which the responsibility of a moral 
agent can be predicated. The opposite view 
claims our assent to two incongruous and appa- 
rently contradictory propositions, between which 
there is not only no agreement, but an evident 
repugnancy. This is the embarrassment in the 
one case, and it is fatal to the theory. 

If there are embarrassments in the other case, 
and what theory of mind or matter has not its 



CALVIMSTIC CONTROVERSY. 179 

inexplicables ? — these embarrassments are evi- 
dently of another kind ; it is not the want of 
light to see how two antagonist principles can 
agree, the repugnancy of which must be the 
i lore apparent as light increases, but it is from 
lie known limits to human knowledge. The 
principal embarrassment to the theory we de- 
snd is, we cannot understand the manner in 
vhich this faculty of the mind operates. But 
his is no more difficult than to understand the 
nanner in which other faculties of the mind op- 
irate. To make this last statement clear, the 
eader is desired to recollect that the mind is not 
livided into parts and members like the body. 
VVhen we talk of the faculties of the mind, we 
should understand the power that the entire mind 
has to act in this or that way. Thus we say, the 
nind has the faculties of will and of memory, 
hat is, the mind, as a whole, has the powers 
bf choosing, and of calling up its past impres- 
sions. Now if any one will tell me how the 
nind remembers, I will tell him how it wills ; 
and I have the same right to ask him what 
causes the memory to remember, as he has to 
ask me what causes the will to will. In both 
cases it may be said, the mind remembers and 
wills because this is its nature — God made it so. 
When you analyze until you come to the original 
elements, or when you trace back effects until 
you come to first principles, you must stop. — 
And if you will not receive these first principles 
because you cannot explain them farther, then 
indeed you must turn universal skeptic. I 



180 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY, 

frankly acknowledge 1 cannot tell how the mind 
acts in its volitions. And let it be understood 
that the motive theory, with all its other embar- 
rassments, has this one in common with ours. — 
Can its advocates tell me how motives act upon 
the mind ? True philosophy is an analysis of 
constituent principles, or of causes and effects, 
but the origin of these relations and combina- 
tions is resolvable only into the will of the Crea- 
tor. It is so, because God hath made it so. 
And the nature of these relations is beyond the 
reach of the human mind. However impatient 
we may be at these restrictions, they are limits 
beyond which we cannot go ; and our only duty 
in the case is, submission. 

I am aware, however, that what I have now 
said may, without farther explanation, especially 
when taken in connection with a principle of 
philosophy already recognized, be considered as 
an important concession to my opponents. I 
have before stated, in substance, that in the ma- 
terial world there is, strictly speaking, no such 
thing as power ; that the efficiency of the laws 
of nature is, in fact, the Divine energy operating 
in a uniform way. " Let it be granted," a 
Calvinist might say, " that what we call the 
operation of second causes is universally the 
supreme Intelligence operating in a uniform 
way, and it is all we ask to defend our system. 
Then it will be granted, that in each volition of 
the human mind the operation of the will is no- 
thing more than the energy of the Divine mind 
operating in a uniform way." 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 181 

To this I reply, Though matter, on account of 
its inertia, cannot in any proper sense be said to 
have power, yet the same is not true of mind. 
If any one thinks it is, then the supreme Mind 
itself has not power. In other words, as both 
matter and mind are inert, and cannot act only 
as acted upon, there is no such thing as power 
in the universe ! and thus we again land in 
atheism. But if mind has power, as all theists 
must grant, then the human mind may have 
power. If any one can prove that it is impos- 
sible, in the nature of things, for the Supreme 
Being to create and sustain subordinate agents, 
with a spontaneous power of thought and moral 
action, to a limited extent, in that case we must 
give up our theory. But it is presumed no one 
can prove this, or will even attempt to prove it. 
We say, God has created such agents, and that 
they act, in their responsible volitions, uncontrol- 
led by the Creator, either directly or by second 
causes. We are expressly told, indeed, that 
God made man " in his own image ;" his moral 
image doubtless. Man, then, in his own subor- 
dinate sphere, has the power of originating 
thought, the power of spontaneous moral action : 
this, this only, is the ground of his responsibility. 
Will it be said that this puts man entirely out 
of the control of his Creator ? I answer, By 
no means. It only puts him out of the control 
of such direct influences as would destroy his 
moral liberty. Does the power of moral action, 
independent of the magistracy and the laws, de- 
stroy all the control of the civil government 



182 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

over malefactors ? How much less in the other 
case 7 God can prevent all the mischief that a 
vicious agent might attempt, without throwing 
any restraint upon his responsible volitions. It 
is thus that he " makes the wrath of man praise 
him, and the remainder of wrath he restrains." 

Let it be understood, then, from this time for- 
ward, by all, as indeed it has been understood 
heretofore by those who have carefully examined 
the subject, that when the Calvinists talk about 
" free will," and " human liberty," they mean 
something essentially different from what we 
mean by these terms ; and, as it is believed, 
something essentially different from the popular 
meaning of these terms. They believe in hu- 
man liberty, they say, and the power of choice, 
and we are bound to believe them ; but we are 
also bound not to suffer ourselves to be deceived 
by terms. Theirs is a liberty and power of a 
moral agent to will as he does, and not other- 
wise. Ours is an unrestricted liberty, and a 
spontaneous power in all responsible volitions, 
to choose as ice do, or otherwise. 

Thus far I have examined the mind in its 
power of choosing good or evil, according to its 
original constitution. How far this power has 
been affected by sin, on the one hand, or by 
grace, on the other, is a question that will claim 
attention in my next. 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 183 



NUMBER X. 

MORAL AGENCY AS AFFECTED BY THE FALL, AND 
THE SUBSEQUENT PROVISIONS OF GRACE. 

My last number was an attempt to prove that 
God created man with a spontaneous power of 
moral action ; and that this was the only ground 
of his moral responsibility. It is now proposed 
to inquire how far this power has been affected 
by the fall, and the subsequent provisions of 
grace. The doctrine of the Methodist Church 
on these points is very clearly expressed by the 
7th and 8th articles of religion in her book of 
Discipline. 

1. " Original sin standeth not in the following 
of Adam, (as the Pelagians vainly talk,) but it is 
the corruption of the nature of every man that 
naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, 
whereby man is very far gone from original 
righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to 
evil, and that continually." 

2. " The condition of man after the fall of 
Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare 
himself, by his own natural strength and works, to 
faith and calling upon God : wherefore we have 
no power to do good works pleasant and accept- 
able to God, without the grace of God by Christ 
preventing us, (going before to assist us,) that we 
may have a good will, and working with us when 
we have that good will." 

It is not pretended here that any intellectual 
faculties are lost by sin, or restored by grace ; 



184 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY, 

but that the faculties that are essential to mind 
have become corrupted, darkened, debilitated, so 
as to render man utterly incapable of a right 
choice without prevenient and co-operating 
grace. As muscular or nervous power in a 
limb, or an external sense, may be weakened or 
destroyed by physical disease, so the moral 
power of the mind or an inward sense may be 
weakened or destroyed by moral disease. And 
it is in perfect accordance with analogy, with 
universal language, and with the representations 
of Scripture, to consider the mind as suscepti- 
ble, in its essential nature, of this moral dete- 
rioration. If any one should say he cannot un- 
derstand what this moral defect is, I would 
answer by asking him if he can tell me what the 
essence of mind is 1 And if he chooses to ob- 
ject to this kind of depravity, because he cannot 
understand it, in its essence, he should turn ma- 
terialist at once ; and then, as he will find equal 
difficulty to tell what the essence of matter is, 
and in what its weakness and disorder essen- 
tially consist, he must turn universal skeptic. — 
The simple statement is, the soul has become 
essentially disordered by sin ; and as no one can 
prove the assertion to be unphilosophical or con- 
trary to experience, so I think it may be shown 
from Scripture that this is the real state of faBen 
human nature. And it may also be shown that 
this disorder is such as to mar man's free agen- 
cy. There is a sense, indeed, in which all vol- 
untary preference may be considered as imply- 
ing free agency. But voluntary preference does 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 185 



not necessarily imply such a free agency as in- 
volves moral responsibility. The mind may be 
free to act in one direction, and yet it may so 
entirely have lost its moral equilibrium as to be 
utterly incapable, of its own nature, to act in an 
opposite direction, and therefore not, in the full 
and responsible sense, a free agent. It is not 
enough, therefore, to say, "Free agency (of a 
responsible kind) consists in the possession of 
understanding, conscience, and will ;" (see 
Christian Spectator for September, 1830 ;) un- 
less by will is meant the spontaneous power 
already alluded to. The understanding may be 
darkened, the conscience may be seared or pol- 
luted, the will, that is, the power of willing, may, 
to all good purposes, be inthralled ; and this is 
what we affirm to be the true state and condition 
of unaided human nature. 

It will be farther seen that the above account 
of human nature does not recognize the distinc- 
tion of natural and moral ability. The fact is, 
man's inability is both natural and moral ; it is 
natural, because it is constitutional ; and it is 
moral, because it relates to the mind. To say 
a fallen man has natural power to make a right 
choice, because he has the faculties of his mind 
entire, is the same as to say that a paralytic 
man has the natural power to walk, because he 
has his limbs entire. It appears to me that the 
whole of this distinction, and the reasoning from 
it, proceed on the ground of a most unphiloso- 
phical analysis of mind and an unwarranted 
definition of terms. The simple question is> 



186 CALVIMSTtC CONTROVERSY. 

Has fallen man, on the whole, the power to make 
a right choice, or has he not ? We say without 
grace he has not. And therefore fallen man is 
not, in the responsible sense of that term, a free 
agent without grace. 

This view of the subject is not novel in the 
Church. I readily acknowledge that a doctrine 
is not therefore true, because it has been held by 
many, and can be traced back to antiquity, un- 
less it can be proved to be Scriptural. The 
fact, however, that a doctrine has been generally 
received in the Church, entitles it to respect and 
to a careful examination, before it is discarded. 
Hence to those who have only read modern 
Calvinistic authors on this subject, it may be a 
matter of surprise to learn that not only the more 
ancient fathers, but even St. Austin himself, the 
introducer of predestination into the Church, 
and Calvin, and the synod of Dort, were all 
supporters of sentiments substantially the same 
as are here vindicated — I say, those who have 
only read modern Calvinistic authors will be 
surprised to learn this, because these authors 
treat this doctrine as though it were so unrea- 
sonable and absurd as scarcely to be tolerated in 
the view of common sense. Though it may have 
an influence with some, in a paucity of better 
reasons, to scout a doctrine from the Church by 
calling it absurd, yet the candid will not readily 
give up an old doctrine for a new, without good 
reason. 

I had at first thought of quoting pretty freely 
from some of the fathers, and especially from the 



CAXVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 187 * 

early Calvinists, to show their views on this 
point. But it may not be necessary, unless the 
statements here made should be denied. Let 
therefore one or two quotations from Calvin and 
from the synod of Dort, both of which I think 
Calvinists will acknowledge as good Calvinistic 
authority, suffice. Calvin denies all power to 
man, in his apostasy, to choose good, and says 
that, " being surrounded on every side with the 
most miserable necessity, he (man) should never- 
theless be instructed to aspire to the good of 
which he is destitute, and to the liberty of which 
he is deprived" The synod of Dort decided 
thus : — " We believe that God — formed man 
after his own image, &c, capable in all things 
to will agreeably to the will of God." They 
then speak of the fall, and say, " We reject all 
that is repugnant to this concerning the free will 
of man, since man is but a slave to sin, and has 
nothing of himself, unless it is given him from 
heaven." And speaking of the change by 
grace, they add, " The will thus renewed is not 
only actuated and influenced by God, but in con- 
sequence of this influence becomes itself active" 
And to show that Calvin did not consider the 
voluntary acts of a depraved sinner as proof of 
free will, he says, " Man has not an equally free 
election of good and evil, and can only be said to 
have free will, because he does evil voluntarily, 
and not by constraint ;" and this he ironically 
calls " egregious liberty indeed ! if man be not 
compelled to serve sin, but yet is such a willing 
slave that his will is held in bondage by the fet- 



188 CALVIXISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

ters of sin." These quotations, I think, show 
satisfactorily that the early Calvinists believed 
man to have lost his power to choose good by 
apostasy, and can only regain it by grace. It is 
true, they generally believed that whenever this 
grace was imparted to an extent to restore to the 
mind the power of choosing good, it was regen- 
erating grace. And herein they differ from the 
Arminians, who believe that grace may and does 
restore the power to choose good before regen- 
eration. This, however, does not affect the 
point now under examination, but involves a 
collateral question, which will be examined in its 
proper place. One thought more, and I pass to 
the arguments on the main questions in the arti- 
cles quoted above. These articles are taken 
frorn the 9th and 10th of the articles of the 
Church of England. Our 8th is indeed iden- 
tically the same as the 10th of the Church of 
England ; and the latter part of that article, 
commencing, " Wherefore, &c," is taken sub- 
stantially from St. Austin himself. Thus much 
for the Calvinistic authority of the doctrine we 
defend. To which, if it were necessary, we 
might add quotations from Beza, Dr. Owen, a 
decided Calvinist, and many of the ancient 
fathers. Nay, the Remonstrants declared, in 
the presence of the synod of Dort, that this was 
" the judgment of all antiquity." 

Let us now notice some arguments in favour 
of this doctrine. 

1. The doctrine above stated, and now to be 
defended, must be true, as is believed, since only 



CALVIXISTIC CONTROVERSY. 189 

(his view of man's condition will accord with the 
Scripture account of depravity. If the Scrip- 
tures teach that man is constitutionally depra- 
ved, that a blight and a torpor have come over 
his moral nature, comparable to sleep, to dis- 
ease, and to death, how can it be otherwise than 
that this should affect his power to choose good ? 
Had man any too much moral power in the first 
instance to constitute him an accountable moral 
agent ? And if he had not, has he enough now 
that his mind has become darkened, his judgment 
perverted, and his moral powers corrupted and 
weakened ? Or will it be denied that the moral 
energies of his nature have been impaired by 
sin ? If not, how has he been affected ? Let 
any one spend a thought on this question, and 
decide, if he can, what definite vicious effect can 
be produced on man's moral nature which will 
not necessarily imply a weakening and an em- 
barrassment of his original power to a right 
choice. Should it be said that his power is 
somewhat weakened, but he has enough left to 
constitute him free to choose good, this would 
imply that before the loss he had more than 
enough ! Besides, such an idea would rest on 
the principle that man's moral nature was not 
wholly vitiated. It is said, I know, that all the 
embarrassment which man has to a right choice 
is a disinclination to moral good. But if this 
disinclination to good be derived and constitu- 
tional, it exists in the mind previous to any act 
of choice, and is therefore the very thing we 
mean — it is this very thraldom of the mind 



190 CALVIXISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

which utterly incapacitates it to choose good. 
If it be asked whether disinclination can ever be 
so strong as to destroy the freedom of the will 
to act in one particular direction ? I answer, 
most unhesitatingly, Yes ; and if that disinclina- 
tion is either created or derived, and not the re- 
sult of an antecedent choice, the possessor is not 
morally obligated to act in opposition to it, unless 
he receive foreign aid to help his infirmities, and 
to strengthen him for a contrary choice. 

It follows then, I think, that we must either 
give up constitutional depravity, or discard the 
notion that We can make a right choice without 
Divine aid. And here, if I mistake not, we 
shall find the precise point on which modern 
Calvinism has verged over into the New Di- 
vinity theory of depravity. Perceiving that to 
acknowledge any depravity of man's moral con- 
stitution would either imply the necessity of su- 
pernatural aid in order to a right choice, or else 
free man from responsibility, Dr. Taylor and 
bis associates have resolved all depravity into 
choice or voluntary preference. They deny that 
there is any thing in the nature of man, antece- 
dently to his act of willing, that possesses a 
moral character. Their idea is perfectly con- 
sistent with the notion of natural ability ; and 
that the advocates of the New Divinity have em- 
braced this idea is evidently a proof that they 
think closely and are seeking after consistency, 
let it lead them where it will. The only won. 
der is, that all who cleave to the dogma of natu, 
ral ability do not follo\v them. The doctrine of 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 191 

natural ability, if it is any thing more than a 
name, appears evidently to be a part of the old 
Pelagian system, and should never be separated 
from its counterpart — the doctrine of self con- 
version and the natural perfectability of the hu- 
man character. But this clearly implies that 
there is no serious derangement or radical 
viciousness of the moral man. Here, then, is 
another instance in which Calvinists in gene- 
ral revolt at the legitimate results of their own 
system. 

But while the New Divinity advocates have 
fearlessly removed an important objection to 
their doctrine, they have, by this very act, as it 
is believed, however little they may have design- 
ed it, set themselves in fearful array against the 
Scripture doctrine of depravity and salvation by 
grace, and have opened a wide door for the in- 
troduction of numerous and dangerous heresies. 
It is true, they will not own that they have gone 
very far from the old system. They think the 
doctrine of natural depravity is asserted when 
they say, u Man's nature is such that he will 
sin, and only sin, in all the appropriate circum- 
stances of his being." (See Dr. Taylor's Ser- 
mon.) But what this " nature" is, we are at a 
loss to determine ; as also what the " such" is 
that is predicated of this nature ; nor has Dr. 
T. told us how he knows that all men will sin 
and only sin, when in fact they have natural 
power to avoid it ; or in what other than " the 
appropriate circumstances of their being" those 
are who become regenerate. In fact, while this 



192 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

theory claims to be orthodox, and thus to assi- 
milate itself with the old theory, it has only 
exchanged one inconsistency for a half score. 
Its advocates, to be consistent, must come out 
plain and open Pelagians, and then meet the 
Scripture doctrine of depravity and salvation by 
grace as they can, or they must go back to their 
old ground, and endure the manifest inconsist- 
ency they are now endeavouring to avoid ; or, 
what seems to me better than either, come on 
to the Arminian ground, which shuns all these 
difficulties, while it maintains constitutional de- 
pravity and salvation by grace from the founda- 
tion to the top stone, including of course a gra- 
cious ability to choose life and gain heaven. 

2. Another argument in favour of the neces- 
sity of Divine grace, in order to a right choice, 
is the fact, that God actually gives grace to 
those who finally perish, as well as to those who 
are saved. Of this fact the Scriptures afford deci- 
sive proof. They speak in general terms. Je- 
sus Christ " is the true light that lighteth every 
man that cometh into the world." " The grace 
of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared 
unto all men." They speak in special terms of 
the unregenerate — that they grieve, resist, and 
quench the Spirit of grace, which certainly they 
could not do if they had it not. But if they have 
the operations of the Spirit, what are these op- 
erations ? What is the Spirit doing to the inner 
man? Will it be said he is bringing motives 
to bear upon the mind ? < But what motives 
other than those found in the Gospel ? These 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 193 



the sinner has without the Spirit. If these mo- 
tives can convert sinners, any of us can convert 
our neighbours. " But," it is said, " the Spirit 
makes the heart feel these motives." Aye, 
truly he does, and that not by operating upon the 
motives, but upon the heart, and this is the very 
work we contend for. It is thus that the Spirit 
graciously arouses and quickens the dead soul, 
and brings it to feel, and excites it to act, in the 
great work of salvation. 

Since, then, it must be granted that unregene- 
rate sinners, and those who are finally lost, have 
the operations of this Spirit of grace, let me seri- 
ously inquire, For what purpose is this grace 
given ? On the Calvinistic ground it cannot be 
that they may have a chance for salvation, and 
thus be without excuse ; for this is secured with- 
out grace. Since they have natural ability to 
come to Christ, the abuse of that ability is suffi- 
cient to secure their just condemnation. So say 
the Calvinists ; and on this ground they maintain 
that the reprobates are justly condemned. For 
what purpose, then, is this grace given ? If we 
may establish a general principle by an induc- 
tion of particulars ; if we may judge of the de- 
sign of the God of providence or grace, by 
noticing, in any given case, the uniform results, 
then we can easily determine this point. God 
gives grace to the reprobates that their condem- 
nation may he the more aggravated. The argu- 
ment stands thus : God gives grace to the repro- 
bates for some important purpose. He does not 
give it that salvation may be possible to them, 
13 



194 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY* 



for they are able to be saved without it ; he does 
not give it to make salvation certain, for this it 
does not effect ; nevertheless he gives them 
grace, the invariable effect of which is to in- 
crease their condemnation. The only consistent 
inference therefore is, that he gives grace to the 
reprobates that they may have a more aggrava- 
ted condemnation. Here, then, we trace the 
Calvinistic theory to one of these logical con- 
sequences charged upon it in the sermon, and 
which has been so strenuously dented by the 
reviewers — a consequence which, revolting as 
it is, must nevertheless be charged upon it 
still, unless its advocates can show why grace 
is given to the reprobates when they have all 
necessary ability to repent and believe with- 
out it. 

3. On the ground of this doctrine, also, there 
would be some difficulty in accounting for the 
necessity of giving grace, in all eases, even to 
the elect. Why may not some of these repent 
without grace ? Nay, why may not some of the 
reprobates, in the plenitude of their natural abil- 
ity, repent and be converted, in despite of the 
decree of reprobation? Did God foresee that 
they would not, and on that foresight predicate 
his decree of reprobation ? But that would be a 
conditional reprobation, and would therefore 
imply its counterpart — a conditional election. 
This no class of Caivinists will admit. How 
happens it, then, that some of these reprobates 
do not get converted, since they not only have 
natural powers enough to make a right choice. 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 195 

but have some grace beside? Is it because- 
God has fixed the barrier in something else, by 
which this ability, grace, and all are rendered 
nugatory ? But this would render their condem- 
nation unjust, Calvinists themselves being judges. 
They tell us that the only just ground of con- 
demnation is, that the sinner will not come to 
Christ. Here, then, is the most extraordinary 
thing that angels or men ever knew ; for almost 
six thousand years there has been upon our earth 
a succession of generations of sinners, and in 
the present generation of them there are eight 
hundred millions. All of these f throughout all 
their generations, have had no other obstruction* 
to salvation but what exists in their own will r 
and each and all have had by nature all needful 
ability in the will to a right ehoice, and have 
had a measure of grace superadded, and yet not 
a reprobate among them all has ever made a 
right choice ; and not one of the elect ever did 
or ever will make such a choice until God, by 
an omnipotent act, " makes his elect willing in 
the day of his power ! !" This is a miracle to 
which all the other miracles in the world are as 
nothing — a miracle which Omnipotence alone 
can accomplish by a Divine constitution and an 
all-controlling energy. Thus this doctrine de- 
stroys itself. It assumes positions, with respect 
to free will, that cannot be maintained, only on 
the supposition of an efficient superior agency to 
direct the action of that free will, in a course of 
sinful volition, in hundreds of millions of cases, 
without a single variation, save where that varia- 



196 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

tion is the result of the same superior Power 
acting in the opposite direction. 

4. That the sinner receives aid by Divine 
grace to enable him to repent ; and that he 
could not repent, without this, appears evident 
from the Scriptural representation of the ground 
of man's responsibility. " If I had not come," 
says the Saviour, " ye had not had sin." " This 
is the condemnation, that light has come into 
the world, and men loved darkness rather than 
light." " He that believeth not is condemned 
already, because he hath not believed in the 
only begotten Son of God." " Because I have 
called, and ye have refused, &c, I also will 
laugh at your calamity." These and many 
other passages seem to imply that the sinner is 
rejected on the ground of his neglecting offered 
grace. But if this is the ground of his con- 
demnation, it is not for the abuse of natural 
power. I see no way for a plausible attempt 
even to get rid of this argument, unless it 
should be attempted to raise a question respect- 
ing the nature of this grace. It may be said 
that " these passages only relate to gracious 
provisions, such as the atonement, the Scriptures 
of truth, &c, and have no reference whatever to 
a gracious influence upon the mind. The mind 
had sufficient strength to believe, repent, &c, 
but something must be presented to believe in ; 
and some provision must be made to make 
repentance available." In reply I would say, 
First, Even this shows that man could not 
have been saved from sin without grace, and 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



197 



hence on this ground this theory would be 
involved in the very difficulty which it attempts 
to throw upon our view of the subject, viz., that 
grace is necessary to make men guilty, because 
none can be guilty in a case where their course 
is unavoidable. But, leaving this for another 
place, I would say farther, in reply to the above, 
that the Scriptures do not represent this grace 
as confined to external provisions, but on the 
contrary speak of it as operating upon and 
influencing the mind, and that, too, in the very 
way for which we contend. Look at a few 
Scriptural expressions, promiscuously selected, 
and see how clearly they sustain our position. 
In the first place, to give the argument full 
force, let us notice the Scripture account of 
man's natural condition. He is " in darkness," 
" asleep," " dead," « without strength," " sick," 
« deaf," "blind," » lame," " bound," " helpless 
and all this in consequence of sin. Indeed, this 
is the very definition of his sinful character and 
condition. If such language does not describe 
utter inability of the sinner to serve God, then 
no language can do it. Now let us see what 
grace does. Its very design is to " awake the 
sleeper ;" to unstop deaf ears, and "open blind 
eyes ;" to " lighten every man ;" to " strengthen 
with might by the Spirit in the inner man." 
" Christ strengthens" the sinner, that he may 
" do all things." It is on the ground that " God 
worketh in him to will and to do," that man is 
exhorted to " work out his salvation with fear 
and trembling." " Thou strengthenedst me 



198 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



with strength in my soul" But leaving farther 
quotations of this kind, let the reader fix his 
attention on the stress which the Scriptures lay 
upon the striving of the Spirit. All the efficacy 
of the word is ascribed to the Spirit ; and hence 
the apostle declares that he " preached the 
Gospel, with the Holy Ghost sent down from 
heaven ;" that it " came, not in word, but in 
power" Indeed, " the letter (of the word) 
killeth, but the Spirit giveth life." Hence the 
frequent cautions not to " grieve" or " quench 
the Spirit." Now what, I ask, can all these 
scriptures mean? Is there any plausibility in 
the idea, that by such expressions nothing is 
meant but the general provisions of grace in the 
Gospel economy? That no direct, gracious 
influence of the Spirit upon the heart is intended ? 
In fact, the new idea of conversion by motives 
and moral suasion seems to be a device to meet 
this very difficulty. The old Calvinists charge 
the advocates of the New Divinity with holding 
that all the Spirit does in operating upon the 
heart, is not by operating upon it directly, but 
indirectly through the truth : which has given 
rise to the saying, "If I were as eloquent as 
the Holy Ghost, I could convert souls as well as 
he." And if they do hold this, it is no wonder, 
for indeed it is the legitimate consequence of 
the doctrine of natural ability. They doubtless 
arrive at it thus : — According to the Scriptures, 
man's responsibility turns on his rejecting or 
improving the grace of God. That grace cannot 
be an internal gracious influence upon man's 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 199 

moral nature, because that would conflict with 
the notion of responsibility, on the ground of 
natural power. These scriptures therefore can 
mean nothing more than that a gracious atone- 
ment is provided, and a record of Divine 
truth made, and now, in the use of his natural 
power, the sinner is required to judge of and 
embrace this truth, which if he does, he in this 
sense improves the grace of God, and is con- 
verted ; but if he does it not, he grieves the 
Spirit, and is condemned. Thus in the one 
case, if he is converted, it is in the use of his 
natural power, " choosing in the view of mo- 
tives ;" and in the other case, if he is not 
converted, it is in the use of his natural power, 
refusing in view of motives. Is not this correct 
reasoning ? And ought not the New-Haven 
divines to be commended for carrying out the 
system to its legitimate results? And ought 
not all to follow them in this, who hold to natural 
ability ? And yet no wonder that they hesitate 
here, for cold and spiritless indeed must be that 
system of religious experience that resolves the 
conversion of the soul into a mere natural ope- 
ration of choosing, through the influence of 
moral suasion. 

Leaving this system, therefore, to labour 
under its fatal embarrassments, it may be seen, 
I think, that the system here vindicated corres- 
ponds with the Scriptures and is consistent with 
itself ; for it makes man's responsibility turn 
upon grace improved or misimproved, and it 
makes that grace an internal quickening influ- 



200 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

ence, and a strengthening energy upon the heart ; 
and these different features of the theory, when 
placed together, all seem at once to be compati- 
ble with each other. 

5. Express passages of Scripture teach the 
doctrine here maintained. 

I need not now repeat the passages already 
referred to, in which the state of the depraved 
heart is described, and which show, if any human 
language can show it, that man is natural^ 
"without strength." But my object is to call 
the attention of the reader to some very direct 
and express passages, to show that it is grace, 
and grace alone, that enables the soul to do the 
will of God. " I can do all things," saith the 
apostle, " through Christ who strengthened me." 
Query : would not the apostle have thought it 
presumption to have said, I can do all things 
without strength from Christ ? Has he ever 
intimated such a sentiment in all his writings? 
Does he not rather say, " We are not sufficient 
of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves, 
but our sufficiency is of God ?" This is the 
apostle's general language, and it is in perfect 
accordance with the declaration of his Master, 
" Without me ye can do nothing." " As the 
branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it 
abide in the vine, no more can ye, except ye 
abide in me." " No man can come to me, 
except the Father draw him." " Likewise the 
Spirit helpeth our infirmities ; for we know not 
what to pray for as we ought." " My grace is 
sufficient for thee ; for my strength is made 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 201 

perfect in weakness. " " The God of all grace 
— stablish, strengthen, settle you." "For this 
cause I bow my knees to the Father, &c, that 
he would grant you, according to the riches of 
his glory, to be strengthened with might, by his 
Spirit, in the inner man," " according to the 
power that worketh in us." It is useless to 
quote farther. If these passages do not show 
that our strength to do good is of grace, then it 
appears to me the Holy Spirit must fail of an 
ability to communicate that idea through human 
language. Will it be said that some of these 
passages refer to the regenerate, and therefore 
are not in point to meet the case of the unre- 
generate? I would ask, in reply, whether 
regenerating grace takes away our natural 
ability ? Certainly if the regenerate can neither 
think nor do any thing acceptable without grace, 
much more do the unregenerate need this grace 
to enable them to make a right choice. And 
yet in the face of these most explicit scriptures, 
we are repeatedly told that man has natural 
power to make himself a new heart ! 

To the foregoing considerations, I might add, 
if any farther proof of our doctrine were neces- 
sary, and if this paper had not been extended 
so far already, the universal experience of all 
Christians. This appears, from their language, 
to be the experience of Bible saints, under both 
the Jewish and Christian dispensations. And 
what Christian now living, but feels now, and 
felt when he first embraced the Saviour, that 
the strength to do this was from God— directly 



202 calvinistic controversy. 

from God, through grace. Hear his prayers — 
he pleads his weakness — he asks for strength. 
And what does he mean by that prayer ? Does 
he ask for some external accommodation and 
aid ? No ; he wants strength, by the Spirit, in 
the inner man. And this is the prayer of all 
Christians, whether they advocate this notion of 
natural ability or not. The sayings and writings 
also of these very advocates of natural ability, 
so powerful is this feeling of dependence, are 
often in perfect coincidence, with the doctrine 
we defend. A most striking instance of this 
is found in Dr. Wood's pamphlet (page 97) 
in opposition to Dr. Taylor, as follows : — " The 
common theory (of Calvinistic orthodoxy) leads 
us to entertain low thoughts of ourselves, espe- 
cially in a moral view; and to feel that we are 
not of ourselves sufficient for any thing spiritually 
good, and that, for whatever holiness we now 
possess, or may hereafter attain, we are depend- 
ent on Divine grace." What stronger gracious 
ability do Arminians hold to, than this ? " Not 
of ourselves sufficient for any thing spiritually 
good/' And is this the common theory of Cal- 
vinism ! Then Calvinism here, as in other 
points, is divided against itself. Indeed one 
would be induced to think, were it not for the 
context either that Dr. Wood differed from his 
brothers generally., on this point, or was off his 
guard at this moment. But he tells us, in this 
very paragraph, that he (( does not differ at all 
from the generality of ministers, in New. 
England, respecting the natural powers and 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 203 

faculties of man, as a moral and accountable 
being." But he fears the " unqualified lan- 
guage" which Dr. T. 9 employs respecting the 
natural state, the free will, and the power of 
man." On reading this last passage, I confess 
I am at a loss to know what to say or believe 
of this Calvinistic opinion of natural power. 
Dr. Taylor's " unqualified language" respecting 
" the power of man," I take to be a frank 
statement of Dr. Wood's opinion, and that of 
other Calvinists. Dr. T. says man has natural 
power sufficient to make a right choice. Does 
not Dr. Wood say this ? He says he does not 
differ from " the generality ;" and it is notorious 
that this is the doctrine of the generality of 
those ministers. Dr. Tyler, of Portland, one 
of Dr. Wood's coadjutors in opposing Dr. 
Taylor, says, in a sermon* on free salvation, 
" There is no reprobation taught in the Scrip- 
tures, which destroys human liberty, or which 
impairs the sinner's natural power. Every man 
is a free moral agent. Life and death are set 
before him, and he is capable of choosing 
between them." What language can be more 
" unqualified" than this ? It teaches us that 
man has natural power, which renders him 
capable to make a right choice. It is true, Dr. 
Taylor, and " those who believe with him," carry 
out this doctrine into its legitimate and practical 

* A part of this sermon has lately been published, 
m a tract form, and circulated with the avowed pur- 
pose of counteracting the influence of the sermon 
" on predestination." 



204 



CALVIXISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



bearings. On the ground of this power, they 
exhort sinners " to make themselves new hearts." 
One of them, as reported to me by a preacher, 
went so far as to say, in a public address, that 
sinners ought to be ashamed to ask the aid of 
the Holy Spirit to convert them, since they had 
power to convert themselves. And what objec- 
tion can any, who hold to natural power to 
choose life, urge against this 1 If, as Dr. Tyler 
teaches, in his " Examination of Dr. Taylor's 
Theological Views," a right choice implies 
regeneration ; and if every man is naturally 
capable of a right choice, as taught by this 
same Dr. Tyler, and the " generality" of his 
brethren, then it follows conclusively, and I see 
not how any sophistry can cover up the infer- 
ence, these sinners have natural power to 
convert themselves. Instead therefore of hypo- 
critically pleading their own weakness, before 
a throne of grace, and asking for mercy and 
grace to help them in their time of need, they 
ought to be crimsoned with shame, for their 
folly and hypocrisy, turn away from their im- 
pertinent suit, throw themselves upon the 
resources of nature, and regenerate their own 
hearts. If however these gentlemen believe it 
impossible for sinners to do this, then, taking their 
whole theory together, this power is no power, 
and community, up to this hour, has been de- 
luded by unmeaning words — words which only 
serve to conceal the deformity of a theological 
system, which, when thoroughly examined, is 
found after all, to teach that the poor reprobate 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 205 

has no adequate power by nature, and receives 
no available aid from grace to choose salvation, 
and must therefore, from the imperious necessity 
of his nature and condition, go down to intermi- 
nable death. 



NUMBER XI. 

SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED. 

It is not pretended that there are no difficulties 
in our view of the subject. What important 
theory is there in philosophy, politics, morals, or 
religion, against which some apparently plausi- 
ble objection may not be urged ? But the 
inquiry in each case should be, Are those objec- 
tions fatal to the system ? Or are the difficul- 
ties in the proposed system greater than in some 
other view of the subject ? For reasonable men 
will refuse to be driven into the vortex of skep- 
ticism merely because there are some difficulties 
and obscurities in all subjects of faith, which 
the limitations to human vision will not permit 
us to penetrate. To form an enlightened com- 
parative view in the case before us, it will be 
important that we glance at the different theories 
on the subject of depravity and the ground of 
responsibility. 

1. One form in which this subject has been 
held is, " That the sin of Adam introduced into 
his nature such a radical impotence and depravity 
that it is impossible for his descendants to make 
any voluntary efforts toward piety and virtue, or 



206 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

in any respect to correct and improve their 
moral and religious character, and that faith and 
all the Christian graces are communicated by 
the sole and irresistible operation of the Spirit 
of God, without any endeavour or concurrence 
on the part of man." This of course makes 
the elect entirely passive in their conversion ; 
and consigns the reprobate to destruction for the 
sin of Adam, which, it is maintained, is imputed 
to him by virtue of a federal relation ; or at best 
gives him over to unavoidable personal and eternal 
condemnation for possessing a nature which he 
had no agency in bringing upon himself, and 
from which he has no power to extricate him- 
self. The difficulties of this system are so 
numerous and so palpable, whether it be tried 
by the standard of Scripture, of reason, or of 
common sense, that I need not here allude to 
them. Suffice it to say that they have pressed 
so heavily upon the Calvinists themselves as to 
baffle all their ingenuity and invention at defence, 
and have driven them finally into all those 
changes and modifications so frequently alluded 
to in this controversy. I will here say to ad- 
vance that, in my opinion, this, after all, is the 
strongest position Calvinism can assume. The 
moment its advocates depart from this, they 
must either, to be consistent with themselves, 
verge over into the other extreme of Pelagianism, 
or strike off into the " golden mean" of Armini- 
anism. This may be more clearly seen in the 
sequel. 

2. Pelagianism is another, and an opposite 



CALVISISTIC CONTROVERSY. 207 

theory. It has a variety of shades, called Pe- 
lagian, Semi-pelagian, &c. Its varieties, how- 
ever, relate to some minor modifications of the 
relation of the human family to Adam, touching 
natural evil, the death of the body, and greater 
exposure to temptation. But there is a uniform- 
ity in the essential part of the theory, which is, 
that human nature is free from sin or guilt 
until it becomes guilty by intelligent, voluntary 
exercise. The objections to this theory are, 
among others, as follows. It is in direet opposi- 
tion to the Scripture doctrine of native depravity 
— a doctrine which has been often and ably 
treated of and defended by Calvinistic and 
Arminian divines — a doctrine which is embo- 
died in a palpable form in every man's own 
experience — a doctrine which not only flashes 
upon the mind of the student in every page of 
the history of man, but also upon the mind of 
the unlettered nurse in the earliest emotions 
of the infant that struggles in her arms. 

Another objection to this theory is, that it 
gives to infants, previous to intelligent voluntary 
exercise, no moral character. Hence, should 
they die at this age, as multitudes doubtless do, 
they would not be fit subjects either for the 
rewards of heaven or the pains of hell. At the 
judgment, as they will not be subjects of praise 
or blame, they will neither be on the right hand 
nor the left, and of course will neither be sen- 
tenced to " everlasting punishment," nor wel- 
comed " into life eternal." If, however, they 
by any means go into a state of punishment, 



208 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



their sufferings will be unjust; or if they are 
admitted into heaven, it will not be a salvation 
by grace, nor will it be preceded by regenera- 
tion, nor will their song be, " Unto Him that 
hath loved us," &c. This is not only contrary 
to the whole Gospel system, but also is in direct 
opposition to many scriptures, especially Rom. 
v, 18 : "Therefore, as by the offence of one, 
judgment came upon all men to condemnation ; 
so, by the righteousness of one, the free gift 
came upon all men unto justification of life." 
It also leaves infants involved in the natural 
evils of diseases, pains, and death, not only with- 
out any assignable cause, but also in direct 
opposition to the cause assigned by the apostle — 
" And so death passed upon all men, for that all 
have sinned." 

A third objection to this theory is, that it 
destroys the Scripture doctrine of regeneration. 
The Scripture account of this matter is, in sub- 
stance, that there is a radical change of our 
moral nature by the efficient operations of the 
Holy Ghost. But as this doctrine makes sin 
consist exclusively in exercise, so holiness must 
consist wholly in exercise. The whole work, 
therefore, of regeneration is a mere change of 
volition ; and this volition is not the result of 
a preceding change of moral constitution, but it 
is, like any other volition, produced by the 
native power of the mind, under the exciting 
influence of motives. The Holy Spirit, there- 
fore, may well be dispensed with in this work. 
The supernatural character of the change must 



CALVIN ISTIC CONTROVERSY. 209 

be given up, and the whole work is resolvable 
into a natural process. It is here worthy of 
remark that this is not mere speculation. Such 
has, in fact, been the final result of this theory, 
I believe, in every case where it has long been 
defended. And hence, in close connection with 
this, the supernatural efficacy of the atonement, 
and of course the Divine character of the Re- 
deemer, are found to be notions not at all essential 
to the system, and somewhat discordant with the 
philosophy of its other parts, and are therefore 
soon brought into discredit. And this, too, as 
may be seen by the history of the Church, has 
been the practical result wherever Pelagianism 
or Semi-pelagianism has been cherished. It 
has degenerated into Socinianism. It may be 
said, then, in one word, that this doctrine of 
Pelagianism does, in its teachings, tendencies, 
and practical results, supplant and overthrow all 
the essential principles of the Gospel system. 

3. A third and intermediate theory on the 
subject of depravity and human responsibility 
is the one presented and advocated in the pre- 
ceding number. This system is presented, in 
part, in the very langaage in which the Ultra- 
Calvinists present theirs. Arminians, as well 
as " Calvinists, say that the sin of Adam intro- 
duced into his nature such a radical impotence 
and depravity that it is impossible for his descend- 
ants [who, it is believed, are propagated in the 
moral likeness of their fallen ancestor] to make 
any voluntary efforts [unassisted by grace] 
toward piety and virtue, or in any respect to 
14 



210 



CALVFXISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



correct and improve their moral and religious 
character." Thus far we go together ; but this 
is a point of divergency, from which we take 
very different directions. Instead of going on 
to say " that the Christian graces are communi- 
cated by the irresistible operation of the Spirit 
of God, without any endeavour or concurrence 
on the part of man," we say that "the saving 
grace of God hath appeared unto all men ;" 
and that this grace so enlightens, strengthens, 
and aids the human mind, that it is thereby 
enabled to make that choice which is the turning 
point, conditionally, of the soul's salvation ; 
and that it is by this same gracious aid that the 
man, when he has this good will, is enabled il to 
work out his salvation" unto the end. It is in 
this latter part of the statement that we are at 
issue wirh the Calvinists : but we are at issue 
on both parts with the Pelagians of every grade, 
including, of course, the advocates of the Xew 
Divinity in our country. 

To the foregoing statement of our doctrine it 
is proper to add that we believe that the merits 
of the atonement are so available for and in be- 
half of the whole human family, that the guilt 
of depravity is not imputed to the subject of it 
until, by intelligent volition, he makes the guilt 
his own by resisting and rejecting the grace of 
the Gospel ; and that being thus by grace in a 
justified state, the dying infant is entitled to all 
the promised blessings of the new covenant, 
and will, of course, have wrought in him all 
that meetness necessary to qualify him for the 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 211 

gracious rewards of the saints in glory. Thus, 
according to this system, the dying infant, as 
well as the dying adult believer, is sanctified by 
the blood of the covenant, and saved by grace. 

These are the three systems which are pre- 
sented to the inquirer after truth as the alterna- 
tives, and perhaps I may say the only alternatives 
of choice, in reference to this subject. It is 
true, the doctrine of natural ability has been 
proposed as another alternative, holding an 
intermediate place between the doctrines of na- 
tive impotency as first stated and of Pelagianism. 
And it may therefore appear to some, that I 
ought, in my enumeration, to have given this as 
a separate and distinct theory. My reason, 
however, for not doing this is, that there cannot, 
in my opinion, be such a resting place between 
the doctrines of derived constitutional depravity 
and Pelagianism. Natural ability that is any 
thing more than a name — that is, in fact, an 
ability, destroys the idea of constitutional de- 
pravity ; and depravity that is any thing more 
than a name — that is, in fact, constitutional de- 
pravity, destroys the idea of natural ability. A 
striking proof of this is found in the fact that 
a great portion of those divines in the Calvinistic 
Churches who have been most decided in 
preaching up natural ability, have gone over 
and embraced the New Divinity, which, as we 
have seen, abjures the doctrine of constitutional 
depravity. The New-Haven divines are cer- 
tainly gentlemen of talents and of close thought ; 
and they have been following up this doctrine 



212 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



for a number of years, and it has landed them 
upon the logical conclusion that there is no such 
depravity. But we need not trust to the con- 
clusions of the New Divinity advocates, to 
show that the notions of natural ability and 
natural freedom from guilt and sin necessarily 
and reciprocally imply each other. Why have 
Calvinists left their old ground of natural impo- 
tency, and resorted to the dogma of a natural 
ability? It is for the avowed reason that there 
can be no guilt without an ability to avoid it. 
But since the sin of his nature is unavoidable to 
the new-born infant, of course he can have no 
guilt, and by consequence no sin, until he is 
capable of an intelligent moral choice. Again : 
this same theory tells us that where there is no 
natural ability there is no moral character. 
But as the infant cannot be reasonably supposed 
to have ability to put forth an intelligent holy 
volition, he can have no moral character, and 
of course no sin. 

The only way to avoid this conclusion in con- 
nection with the assumed premises is, to maintain 
that " the infant, from his birth, is a voluntary 
agent ; and thus, in fact, to a certain extent, 
sinful. " And would you believe, reader, that 
any reasonable man would resort to such an 
idea for the sake of helping out a theory? And 
yet it is even so. A paper latety published 
under the sanction of the New Divinity, pur- 
porting to be an inquiry into " what is the real 
difference between the New-Haven divines and 
those who differ from them," says, "The ground 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 213 

has of late been taken (if we understand the 
discussions on this subject) that mankind are 
literally at birth voluntary and accountable 
agents, and actual sinners against God ; that the 
new-born infant is a responsible subject of God's 
moral government, and actually sins with a 
knowledge of his duty, and in the same sense 
with the adult sinner violates moral obligation, 
does wrong, ought to be penitent, and to change 
its moral character." And as a proof that this 
is the ground now assumed, the same writer 
gives us a quotation from Rev. Mr. Harvey, 
who has been one of the most active in this 
state in opposition to the New-Haven divines, 
in which he says, " A moral being, for aught we 
know, may commence his existence in an active, 
voluntary state of the will ; he may be a volun- 
tary agent from his birth, and thus, in fact, to a 
certain extent sinful, and that without supposing 
that depravity is seated in any thing but the 
will" This same writer also states that Dr. 
Spring, in a treatise on " native depravity," a 
work which I have not at hand, has advanced 
and defended the sentiment of " actual sin from 
birth." And has it indeed come to this at last, 
that this natural ability, for which Calvinists 
have so strenuously contended, is nothing more 
than the power the new-born infant has to com- 
mit actual sin on the one hand, or " make himself 
a new heart" on the other ! Alas for Calvinism ! 
To what miserable shifts — yes, I must call them 
miserable shifts — is this system driven ! On 
this subject I will not express myself in accord- 



214 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

ance with my feelings. The respect I have for 
the intelligent, learned, and pious gentlemen 
who have advanced this idea, restrains me in this 
matter. Such a result, in the advocacy of a 
favourite theory, is however in strict accordance 
with the known obliquity of the greatest and 
purest minds. But while we respect the au- 
thors of such a theory, and while we feel the 
necessity of taking heed to ourselves, lest we 
also fall by the same example of prejudice, we 
cannot suffer our common sense to be imposed 
upon by such gross absurdities. In this, how- 
ever, we see that, as before, in trying to main- 
tain their ability, they gave up their depravity : 
so here, in trying to establish their depravity, 
they destroy their ability. Nay, what is still 
worse for this theory, this very attempt to prove 
that infants are " actual sinners from their birth," 
is an indirect denial of the doctrine of derived 
depravity. Why do these gentlemen wish to 
establish this point? Why, forsooth, in order to 
show that men are guilty from their birth, which 
is an acknowledgment, of course, that they can- 
not prove them guilty only by proving that they 
have intelligent moral exercise. Consequently 
it is a concession that this exercise is the occasion 
and origin of their guilt. This is not the first 
time that Calvinism, in trying to save itself, has 
gone over and joined the ranks of its opposers. 
Can the reader see the difference between this 
doctrine of actual sin from the birth, viewed in 
connection with its origin and bearings, and the 
New Divinity, which makes sin consist exclu 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY* 215 

sively in moral exercise ? Let these old-side 
Calvinists, then, sheath the sword of controversy 
which they have drawn against their brethren, 
and join in with them to defend, if possible, the 
Pelagian doctrine which, it would seem, after all, 
they hold in common stock. Has the Rev. 
Mr. Harvey been so active in getting up an 
opposition theological school in Connecticut to 
teach that the infant " commences his existence 
in an active voluntary state of the will, and is 
thus (on this account) to a certain extent sinful V 
This is clearly a work of supererogation — a 
useless expenditure of money and of talents. 
The New-Haven Theological School is capable 
— alas ! too capable of carrying on this work, 
especially if Mr. Harvey and his friends will 
cease their opposition, and unite in their assist- 
ance. Does Mr. Harvey fear that the New- 
Haven divines will not begin their " moral exer- 
cise" early enough to make it natural depravity ? 
They have given assurances that they will not 
be particular on that point. Only allow that 
there is no sin previous to the first intelligent 
act of choice — previous to the corresponding 
power to make themselves new hearts, and they 
will be satisfied. They have said already that 
" this capableness of sinning, if it is not at the 
exact moment of birth, [and they do not affirm 
that it is not,] commences so early in their 
existence, that it is proper, for all the great 
purposes of instruction, to speak of it as existing 
from the beginning of their days." Hence we 
see nothing between these gentlemen on this 



216 CALviNisne coxtkoveest. 



point worth contending about. It will, however, 
be important that all who hold to conversion by 
motives and mere moral suasion should not put 
the commencement of these " moral exercises" 
so far back that the subject cannot understand 
Gospel truth ; otherwise they may yet get into 
another difficulty as serious as the one they are 
trying to avoid. But to the subject. It has been 
very distinctly shown, I think, from the reason, 
ing of the Calvinists themselves, and from the 
nature of the case, that there can be no such 
intermediate theory as they contend for, between 
the native impotency of old Calvinism and Pela- 
gianism. But as this is an important point, I 
will illustrate it farther by an examination of the 
seat of this Calvinistic depravity. It is seen> 
by the quotation above from Mr. Harvey, that 
he considers " depravity as seated in nothing but 
the will. 95 And this is avowedly the sentiment 
of at least all those Calvinists who believe in 
natural ability. It is on this ground that they 
reiterate incessantly, " You can if you will;- 
M There is no difficulty except what is found 
in a perverse will." It is on this ground, also, 
that they tell us u a right choice is conversion." 
They do not say a right choice is a conditio?* 
or a fruit of the new birth ; but it is itself the 
new birth. But to understand this subject 
clearly it is important to know what they mean 
by the will. It appears to me they use this 
term with great indenniteness, if not latitude of 
meaning. If they mean by this what I under- 
stand to be the legitimate meaning of the term a 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 217 

" the mental power or susceptibility of putting 
forth volitions ;" then to say that all depravity 
is seated in the will, is to be guilty of the gross 
absurdity of teaching that the affections have 
not a moral character. If by the will, however, 
they mean, as they frequently seem to mean, 
the affections themselves going out in desire 
after some proposed good, then indeed they 
establish the New-Haven theory, that all sin 
consists in moral exercise. Thus by placing all 
depravity in the will, whether by this is meant 
the power of willing, or the exercise of the 
affections, they, in the one case, exclude sin 
from the affections altogether, and in the other 
affirm the doctrine of Pelagianism. But if by 
the will they mean something different from 
either of the above definitions, then I frankly 
confess I know not what they mean. Should 
they however, change their ground, and place the 
seat of this depravity in the constitution of man's 
moral nature, as it exists anterior to any act of 
volition, then and in that case they throw the 
subject back on the old ground of natural impo- 
tency ; for to talk of a natural pow,er to change 
the moral constitution, as it existed prior to 
choice, and which constitution must, by the law 
of its nature, exercise a controlling influence ever 
the mind, is the same as to talk of a natural 
power to alter one's own nature, or to unmake 
and remake himself. In this case we must 
have supernatural aid, or we must remain as 
we are. 

We shall not be fully prepared to judge cor* 



218 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



rectly on this subject until we have examined 
one more preliminary question, viz. What is 
the precise meaning that we are to attach to the 
terms, natural and moral ability, as used by the 
Calvinists ? To ascertain this, I have examined 
such authors as I have had access to, with care ; 
and I have been particular to consult recent 
authors, that I might not be accused of charging 
old and exploded doctrines upon our opposers ; 
and various authors, that I might ascertain any 
varieties that appertain to the different Calvinis- 
tic schools. In particular, the author of " Views 
in Theology;" Dr. Griffin, in a late work on 
" Divine Efficiency ;" Rev. Tyler Thatcher, of 
the Hopkinsian school ; and a doctrinal tract, 
entitled, " Man a Free Agent without the Aid 
of Divine Grace," written, it is presumed, by 
one of the divines of the New-Haven school ; 
have been consulted. There is among them all 
a remarkable uniformity on this point. If I 
understand them, the substance of what they 
say is, " Natural power consists in the possession 
of understanding, conscience, and will ; and 
moral power is the exercise of these faculties." 
Mr. Thatcher says this in so many words. — 
The tract alluded to gives this definition of 
natural power. Dr. Griffin says " their [sinners'] 
faculties constitute a natural ability, that is, a 
full power to love and serve God, if their hearts 
are well disposed." It certainly must appear, 
at the first glance, very singular to every mind 
not embarrassed by theory, that either the pos. 
session of faculties, or the exercise of faculties, 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 219 

should be called 'power. The idea of power is 
supposed, by the best philosophical writers, to 
be undefinable, from the fact that it is a simple 
idea; but here, strange to tell, we have it 
analyzed in two different forms. Faculties are 
power — the exercise of faculties is power. 
Now, although we cannot define power, every 
one doubtless has a clear conception of it ; and 
I humbly conceive that the common sense of 
every man will decide that neither of the above 
definitions embraces the true idea of power. 
The exercise of faculties implies power, it is 
granted ; but every one must see that it is not 
power itself. And although the faculties of the 
mind are sometimes called the powers of the 
mind by a kind of borrowed use of the term 
power, just as the limbs or muscles are called 
the powers of the body, yet it requires very 
little discrimination to see that as we may possess 
these powers of the body entire, and yet they 
be defective from some cause, as to some of 
their appropriate functions, so we may possess 
these powers or faculties of mind entire, and 
yet they may be defective in that moral strength 
necessary to a holy choice. Hence the pos- 
session of these faculties does not even imply 
power adequate to a holy choice ; much less 
are they power itself. I marvel therefore at 
these definitions of moral and natural power, 
and am thereby confirmed in the opinion ad- 
vanced in my former number, viz. " That the 
whole of this distinction (of natural and moral 
ability) and the reasoning from it, proceed on 



220 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



the ground of a most unphilosophical analysis 
of mind, and an unwarranted definition of 
terms." This may seem a strong statement 
from so humble an individual as myself, in view 
of the many able minds that have adopted the 
opinions here opposed. But neither their 
opinion nor mine will weigh much, in this con- 
troversy, except as sustained by reasonable 
arguments ; and by such arguments the present 
writer expects to stand or fall. Look then, 
reader, to both sides of this subject. Dr. 
Griffin himself seems to be at a loss how to 
explain himself on this subject. When he 
wishes to oppose the New-Haven divines, and 
guard against their error, he says, "If you 
mean by power, an ability that works without 
Divine efficiency, I hope I shall be the last to 
believe that." " And every body knows that 
the mass of the New-England divines, from 
the beginning, have acknowledged no such 
doctrine." 

And why is Divine efficiency necessary ? — 
Because man has no ability that will " work," 
without it. Thus the moment he sets up a 
guard against Pelagianism, he throws himself 
back either upon our doctrine, or upon the old 
Calvinistic doctrine of " native impotency." 
There is no standing place any where else. 
The New-Haven divines are right, if natural 
ability is right ; and the time cannot be far dis- 
tant when the love of consistency will drive all, 
who hold to natural ability, either on to the 
New Divinity ground, or back to old Calvinism. 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



221 



From this remark the reader will see how much 
depends, if my views are correct, upon the 
proper adjustment of this question. It is in 
fact the turning point, which is to give a cha- 
racter to the theology of the Churches. Let us 
not then be in haste to pass over it. Hear Dr. 
Griffin farther. " Now if you ask me what is 
that power, which is never exerted without 
Divine efficiency? I can only say, that, in the 
account of the Divine mind, it is the proper 
basis of obligation, and therefore by the decision 
of common sense, must be called a power." 
The doctor had a little before told us, that this 
power was faculties — he is not satisfied with 
this ; and what well instructed mind, like the 
doctor's, could be ? It is something that forms 
the " basis of obligation," he knows not what it 
is. He merely infers there is such a power, 
because men are held responsible. But this in- 
ference will flow quite as naturally, by taking 
the Arminian ground of gracious ability,- and 
save the other difficulties beside. At any rate, 
it will save the absurdity of holding to an ability, 
that will not " work," without being strength- 
ened by Divine aid, and yet that this same 
ability is sufficient for all purposes of obligation 
without that aid. 

We shall find equal difficulty, if we take up 
and examine this definition of moral power. 
It is "the exercise of natural power." But 
these same writers tell us that, while we have 
this natural power sufficient without Divine 
grace to form a basis of obligation, " we are 



222 CALVITsISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

entirely dependent upon God's grace for moral 
power" — in other words, according to the defi- 
nition of moral power, we are dependent upon 
grace for the exercise of our natural power — 
and since natural power means the faculties of 
the understanding, will, and conscience — the 
statement is simply and evidently this : we are 
dependent upon Divine grace for the exercise 
of our understanding, conscience, and will, in 
making a holy choice. Why ? Because the 
understanding, conscience, and will are so de- 
praved by nature, that it is not in their nature 
to "work" in this exercise, without this Divine 
grace. Is not this holding the gracious ability 
after all ? Is it singular then that Dr. Griffin 
should say, in another place — " They (sinners) 
are bound to go forth to their work at once, but 
they are not bound to go alone : it is their 
privilege and duty to cast themselves instantly 
on the Holy Ghost, and not to take a single step 
in their own strength ?" Or is it any wonder 
that the Christian Spectator should say, that 
" this statement of Dr. Griffin brings him di- 
rectly on the ground of evangelical Arminian- 
ism?" And is this the ability that "the mass 
of the New-England divines have held to from 
the beginning ?" Not exactly. They only slide 
over on this ground, occasionally, when they are 
pressed hard with Pelagianism on the one hand, 
and the old doctrine of passivity on the other. 
For the truth is, as before remarked, they have not 
a single point to balance themselves upon between 
these two, only as they light upon our ground. 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 223 



There is still another difficulty jn this moral 
power, as it is called. It implies the absurdity, 
that power to obey God is obedience itself. For 
a right exercise of our natural powers is obedi- 
ence. But the right exercise of our natural 
power is moral power — therefore 

Our moral power to obey God is obedience ! ! 
And this will give us a clue to the proper under- 
standing of that oft- repeated Calvinistic saying — 
" You have power to obey God, if your heart is 
rightly disposed," or in short hand — "You can 
if you will." Now the verb will here evidently 
means the right exercise of the natural faculties 
— that is, as shown above, it means obedience. 
Hence the whole and proper meaning of this 
notable saying is — " You have power to obey 
God, if you obey him" " You can if you do" 
This is a sort of logic which, when scanned 
down to its naked character, one would get as 
little credit in refuting, as its abettors are en- 
titled to for its invention and use. And yet this 
is the logic which, in its borrowed and fictitious 
costume has led thousands in our land to 
suppose that Calvinism, as it is now modified, 
is the same, or nearly the same with Metho- 
dism. 

There is still another striking solecism, neces- 
sarily connected with this definition of power. 
It supposes it to have no actual existence, until 
the necessity for it ceases. For in the order of 
cause and effect, natural power effects the act 
of obedience; and this effect of natural power, 
producing obedience, gives existence to moral 



224 CALVIXISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

power. Thus we have power to obey, super- 
added to the power that has actually obeyed ! 
If, however, Calvinists say this is treating the 
subject unfairly, because their very definition 
shows that they do not mean by it any thing 
which enables man to obey — I answer, that my 
reasoning went upon the ground, that it was 
what they call it — power ; and if they do not 
mean power, that is only acknowledging the 
position I started upon, that this Calvinistic 
power is no power at all. And here I ask, in 
the name of candour, What is the use of calling 
things by wrong names? What confusion 
and error may not be introduced by applying 
common and well defined terms in such a man- 
ner, that, when the things to which they are 
applied, are defined, it is seen that the terms 
thus applied are worse than useless ; they di- 
rectly mislead the mind ! It is the direct way 
to bring Christian theology and Christian min- 
isters into distrust and reproach. 

One thought more, with respect to this moral 
power, and I will pass on. The doctrine of 
Calvinism is, if I understand it, that God con- 
trols the natural power of men, by means of 
their moral power. This some of them ex- 
pressly affirm. And to show that I am not 
mistaken with respect to the others, let the 
reader carefully attend to the following consider- 
ations. What is it secures the fulfilment of the 
Divine decrees, in respect to the elect and the 
reprobate ? Why do not some of the reprobates, 
in the use of natural ability, repent and get to 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 225 

heaven ? Because they have not the moral 
power. Why do not some of the elect, in the 
use of the same ability, fall into sin and finally 
perish ? Because God makes and keeps them 
willing in the day of his power — that is, he 
irresistibly imparts to them this moral power. 
Thus, by means of this, which he keeps in his 
own hands, he executes his decrees. For God, 
of set purpose, so constituted this natural power* 
that it does not " work" without Divine effi^ 
ciency. By moral power, therefore, natural 
power is controlled. Now, to say nothing here 
of the absurdity of efficiently and irresistibly 
controlling one power by another, and yet call- 
ing that other the essence of free agency, and 
the basis of obligation-— look at the absurdity 
in another point of view. Since moral power 
is the exercise of natural power, the former 
must be the effect of the latter. And since, 
according to Calvinism, natural power is con- 
trolled by moral power, it follows conclusively, 
that the effect controls its cause ! ! And since 
the cause must act, before the effect is produced* 
it follows that the effect, before it has an exist- 
ence* acts upon its cause to produce its own 
existence ! ! ! This is certainly a nullification 
of both cause and effect. Such are some of 
the difficulties of these definitions of power — 
definitions as contrary to the common under- 
standings of men, and the common laws of 
language, as they are to sound philosophy- 
definitions which, if they were always under- 
stood, when the terms were used, would make 
15 



226 calvinistic controversy, 

the propositions in which these terms are found, 
sound very differently to the common ear. I 
trust therefore it has been made to appear, that 
" this distinction of natural and moral ability, and 
the reasonings upon it, are founded on a most 
unphilosophical analysis of mind and an un. 
warranted definition of terms," and that, after 
all the efforts of the Calvinists to find out an- 
other alternative, they will be under the neces- 
sity, if they would be consistent, either of going 
back to the old Calvinistic ground, of remedi- 
less im potency, or of advancing on to the Pela- 
gian ground of the New Divinity ; or they must 
accept of the Arminian theory of gracious 
ability. And that the reader may be prepared 
to make his selection, I will here remind him of 
the arguments adduced in favour of the latter 
doctrine, in the last number, while I next pro- 
ceed to answer more specifically the objections 
that have been urged against it, which however 
for an obvious reason must be withheld until 
the next number. 



NUMBER XII. 

OBJECTIONS TO GRACIOUS ABILITY ANSWERED. 

In consulting different authors to find the 
strongest objections that have been urged against 
our doctrine of ability by grace, I have fixed 
upon the doctrinal tract, already alluded to, en- 
titled, " Man a Free Agent without the Aid of 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



227 



Divine Grace," as concentrating in a small com- 
pass, and in a clear and able manner, the sum 
total of these objections. I may not follow the 
precise order of this writer, and possibly shall 
pass over some of his remarks as of minor 
importance ; but the substance of his reason- 
ing shall receive such notice as I shall be able 
to give it. 

1. The first objection is, in substance, this : 
that without being a free agent man cannot be 
man ; that free agency in fact enters into the 
very definition of an intelligent, morally respon- 
sible being ; and therefore he must be such by 
nature. 

This objection gains all its plausibility from the 
writer's definition of free agency. "It consists,'' 
he says, " in the possession of understandings 
conscience, and will." Now we grant that the 
being who possesses these is an intelligent volun- 
tary agent. But these faculties, as we have 
seen, may be disordered, so that, for all holy 
purposes, they may be defective. The under- 
standing may be darkened, the conscience may 
be seared, the power to choose good maybe weak- 
ened either positively or relatively. Liberty is a 
distinct faculty of the soul ; and as such is as 
subject to derangement as any other mental sus- 
ceptibility. It has, we say, suffered materially 
by the fall ; so that man has not his original 
aptitude or facility to good. And whether we 
consider this as a weakness appertaining direct- 
ly to the faculty of the will itself, or whether 
we consider it a relative weakness, (which is 



228 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



probably the more philosophical,) resulting from 
the loss of a moral equilibrium in the mind, by 
reason of the uncontrolled sway of the passions, 
in either case the primary cause and the practical 
result are the same. Sin has perverted the soul, 
and given it an unholy declination from right- 
eousness to an extent which none but God can 
rectify. With this view of the subject, the wri- 
ter may call man a free agent if he pleases ; but 
he is only free to unrighteousness, and not to 
holiness. 

Our objector was aware that his argument 
might be disposed of in this way ; and hence in 
a note he says, " Some writers speak of man, 
in his natural state, as free only to evil. But in 
what does such freedom differ from mere in- 
stinct 1 With no power to do otherwise, how is 
he who murders a fellow creature more criminal 
than the tiger, or even a falling rock that de- 
stroys him ?" The fallacy of this argument 
consists chiefly in a misrepresentation of our 
theory. Instead of holding that man " has no 
power to do otherwise," we believe, as much as 
this author, that man has ample power at his 
command to do otherwise ; but that this power 
is of grace, and not of nature. Any farther sup- 
posed difficulties growing out of this view of the 
subject will be explained, I trust satisfactorily, 
as we advance.* 

* A man was afflicted with the hydrophobia. 
Wheu his paroxysms were coming on he was aware 
of it, and gave warning to his friends to be on their 
guard, that he might not injure them. Suppose, how- 



CALYINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 229 



2. " Every man is conscious that he possesses 
the faculties which constitute free agency." — 
Here again we must keep in view the writer's 
definition. We shall find no difficulty in grant- 
ing that every man is conscious that he possesses 
the faculties of understanding, conscience, and 
will ; but that these, unaided by grace, consti- 
tute man free to a holy choice, is denied ; and 
this is the very question in debate. To affirm 
it therefore in argument is begging the question. 

If, however, the author means to say, as his 
reasoning on this point seems to imply, that man 
is conscious of being a free agent, in the respon- 
sible sense of the term, this is also granted ; but 
then this does not touch the question whether 
this power is of grace or of nature. But, says 
the writer, " When man, under the unfiuence of 
grace, does choose the good, he is not conscious 
of any new faculty or power to choose, but only 
he uses that power in a different manner. The 
power or faculty which chooses evil and which 
chooses good, is the same power differently 
used." Whoever disputed this ?— understand- 
ing by power a faculty of the soul, as this au- 
thor evidently does. We all acknowledge that 
the soul gets no new faculties by grace ; but we 
believe that the mind, in the exercise of its natu- 

ever, he knew of a sure remedy, but voluntarily 
neglected to avail himself of it. Would he not in that 
case be guilty, not only of all the evils that might 
result to others from his malady ; but also of self 
murder ? And yet this man's madness was entirely 
beyond the direct control of his will. 



230 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

ral faculties, is assisted by grace to make a right 
choice. But, says the writer, in this connec- 
tion, " Power to choose between two objects is 
power to choose either. " If the writer means to 
say that power to choose either the one or the 
other of two objects is power to choose either 
— this is an identical proposition : it is only say- 
ing, If a thing is, it is. But if he means to say, 
when two objects are presented to the mind, and 
the mind finds itself possessed of a power to 
attach itself voluntarily to one, that therefore it 
has the same power to attach itself to the other, 
this is denied ; and as no proof is given or pre- 
tended by the objector, nothing but a denial is 
necessary. On this point the founder of the 
Calvinistic school was undoubtedly correct — 
philosophically and theologically correct — when 
he said, " Man has not an equally free election 
of good and evil." 

But that I may meet this objection founded on 
consciousness, full in the face, 1 am prepared to 
assert, and I think prove, that man, so far from 
being conscious that he has by nature adequate 
power to serve God, is conscious of the very 
reverse of this. What truly awakened sinner 
has not a deep conviction of his utter helpless- 
ness ? How many experiences of intelligent 
and pious Calvinists could I quote on this point ? 
As a specimen take that of the Rev. David 
Brainerd, who stands high in the Church, not 
only among Calvinists, but among all Christians 
who know him. I quote a passage from his 
experience quoted by Dr. Griffin : " I saw that 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 231 

it was utterly impossible for me to do any thing 
toward helping or delivering myself. I had the 
greatest certainty that my state was for ever 
miserable for all that I could do, and wondered 
that I had never been sensible of it before." — 
This passage is very strong ; too unqualified, 
perhaps, but it is the natural language of a weak 
sinner, convinced, as all must be before they 
can become strong, of their utter helplessness 
without grace. How fully does such a one 
prove the truth of Scripture, that " the natural 
man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of 
God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither 
can he know them, for they are spiritually dis- 
cerned ;" that " no man knoweth the Father, 
but the Son, and he to whom the Son shall re- 
veal him." Hence the necessity that " the Spi- 
rit should take of the things of Jesus Christ, and 
show them unto them." Indeed, but for this 
darkness and weakness of the understanding, the 
penitent sinner would not feel the necessity of 
the agency of the Spirit : nor would it in fact be 
necessary. It is on this ground that the doc- 
trine of natural ability has led to the idea of con- 
version by moral suasion. Thus it is evident 
that a man may be conscious of having an un- 
derstanding, but at the same time be as fully 
conscious that that understanding is too dark 
and weak for holy purposes, unaided by grace. 
The same is also true of conscience. Experi- 
ence teaches us that it often becomes languid or 
dead, and needs quickening. Hence the Chris- 
tian often prays — 



232 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



" Quick as the apple of an eye, 

O God ! my conscience make ; 
Awake my soul "when sin is nigh, 
And keep it still awake." 

Hence also we pray God to alarm the conscience 
of sinners. So also we learn from Scripture 
and experience that the conscience needs purg- 
ing " from dead works," for the very object that 
we may be able " to serve God with filial fear 
we learn also that we may have " defiled con- 
sciences," weak consciences," " seared con- 
sciences," &c. And here let it be noticed, that 
whether we understand these passages as apply « 
ing to the regenerate or unregenerate, to derived 
depravity or contracted depravity, the argument 
against the objector will in every case apply 
with resistless force, viz. it shows that this fac 
ulty of the soul may become so disordered as to 
have its original healthy action impaired, and 
that in this case nothing can give it its original 
sensibility and strength but the God who made 
it. If sin does disorder the conscience, it disor- 
dered Adam's : and if he begat children in his 
own moral likeness, then his posterity had a 
similar conscience. And therefore it is necessa- 
ry that, as by the offence of the first Adam 
sin abounded, so by the obedience of the second, 
grace may abound in a way directly to meet the 
evil. 

Let us next examine the will. Are we not 
conscious that this also is weak ? How repeat- 
edly does the awakened sinner resolve and fail ! 
until he becomes deeply impressed that he il 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



233 



u without strength !" He tries to keep the law, 
but cannot ; for he finds that " the carnal mind 
is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed 
can be." Hear his complaint ! and that we may 
be sure of taking a genuine case, let us select a 
Bible experience from Rom. vii : " I am carnal, 
sold under sin." (How much liberty to serve 
God has a bond slave to sin ?) " That which I 
do I allow not ; for what I would do that I do 
not, but what I hate that do I." " To will is 
present with me, but how to perform that which 
is good, I find not," &c. (See through the 
chapter.) Hear him finally exclaim, in self de- 
spair, " Who shall deliver me from the body of 
this death ?" Why, Saul of Tarsus ! are you 
not conscious that you have understanding, con- 
science, and will ? Why make such an exclam- 
ation ? Who shall deliver you ? Deliver your- 
self. No ! such philosophy and such theology 
were not known to this writer, neither as a peni^ 
tent sinner, nor as an inspired apostle. " I 
thank God, through Jesus Christ my Lord." — 
" The law of the spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, 
hath made me free from the law [the control- 
ling power] of sin and death." 

Should any one say that the apostle was not 
describing his conversion here, but his experi- 
ence as a Christian believer, I reply : If any 
thing, that would make the passage so much the 
stronger for my present purpose ; for " if these 
things are done in the green tree, what shall be 
done in the dry ?" If a saint — one who has beeq 
washed and renewed— finds nevertheless that his 



234 cALvnasnc coctroversy. 



will is so weak as to need the continued grace 
of God to enable him to do the things that he 
would, much more is this true of the unrenewed 
sinner. If this account of the apostle's experi- 
ence means any thing, it is as express a contra, 
diction of the doctrine, that tee have natural 
strength to serve God, as could be put into words. 
And I am bold to say that this is the experience 
of all Christians. And it presents an argument 
against the doctrine of natural ability which no 
metaphysical reasoning can overthrow — not in- 
deed an argument to prove that we have not 
understanding, conscience, and will ; but to show 
that, having these in a disordered and debilitated 
state, grace is indispensable to aid them, in order 
to an efficient holy choice. How often soever 
the judgment may be brought to a preference 
of the Divine law, it will as often be carried 
away by the strength of the unholy passions until 
it is delivered by the grace of our Lord Jesus 
Christ. We are conscious therefore that ice 
have not natural power to keep the Divine law. 

3. But it is objected again, " that the Scrip, 
tures require us to use our natural faculties in 
the service of God ;" and hence the inference 
is, that these faculties are adequate to this 
service. 

It is certainly no objection to our doctrine, 
that the Scriptures, dealing with man as he is, 
require him to use his natural powers to serve 
God. With what other powers should he serve 
him ? I again repeat that the question is not, 
whether we have mental faculties, nor whether 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 235 

man may or can serve God with these faculties, 
but simply whether the command to obey is 
given independently of the considerations of 
grace. We say it is not ; and in proof refer 
to the Scriptures, which give a promise corres- 
ponding with every command, and assurances 
of gracious aid suited to every duty — all of 
which most explicitly imply, not only man's 
need, but also the ground on which the command 
is predicated. And with this idea agrees the 
alleged condemnation, so often presented in the 
Scriptures : " This is the condemnation, that 
light has come into the world, and men have 
loved darkness." " He that believeth not is 
condemned already." " But they grieved his 
Holy Spirit, therefore he is turned to be their 
enemy." " How shall we escape, if we neglect 
so great salvation." These, and many other 
passages, show that the turning point of guilt 
and condemnation is not so much the abuse of 
natural powers, as the neglect and abuse of 
grace bestowed. 

This point may be illustrated by Christ's heal- 
ing the withered hand. He commanded the 
man to stretch it forth. What was the ground 
of that command, and what was implied in it ? 
The ground of it was, that aid would be given 
him to do it ; otherwise the command to stretch 
forth a palsied limb would have been unreasona- 
ble. And yet it was understood that the man 
was to have no new muscles, or nerves, or 
bones, to accomplish this with ; but he was to 
use those he had, assisted, as they would be, by 



236 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

the gracious power of God. So man, it is true, 
is commanded to use his natural powers in obey- 
ing God ; but not without Divine aid, the pro- 
mise of which is always either expressed or 
implied in the command. 

4. " The Scriptures ascribe no other inability 
to man to obey God, but that which consists in 
or results from the perversion of those faculties 
which constitute him a moral agent." 

It is true, the Scriptures blame man for his 
inability — for inability they certainly ascribe to 
him, and why ? Because where sin abounded 
grace has much more abounded. That sinners 
are perverse and unprepared for holy obedience 
up to this hour is undoubtedly their own fault, 
for grace has been beforehand with them. It met 
them at the very threshold of their moral agen- 
cy, with every thing necessary to meet their 
case. It has dug about the fruitless fig tree. 
It has laid the foundation to say justly, u What 
more could I have done for my vineyard ?" If 
the sinner has rejected all this, and has increas- 
ed his depravity by actual transgression, then 
indeed is he justly chargeable for all his embar- 
rassments and moral weakness, for he has volun- 
tarily assumed to himself the responsibility of 
his native depravity, and he has added to this 
the accumulated guilt of his repeated sins. 

5. It is farther objected, with a good deal of 
confidence, that Arminians, after all, make man's 
natural power the ground and measure of his 
guilt, since " no part of his free agency arises 
from furnished grace, but it consists simply in 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 237 



ability to use or abuse that grace, and of course 
in an ability distinct from, and not produced by 
the grace." 

Let us see, however, if there is not some 
sophistry covered up here. Arminians do not 
mean that man's ability to use grace is independ- 
ent of, and separate from the grace itself. They 
say that man's powers are directly assisted by 
grace, so that through this assistance they have 
ability or strength in those powers which before 
they had not, to make a right choice. To talk 
of ability to use gracious ability, in any other 
sense, would be absurd. It would be like talking 
of strength to use strength — of being able to be 
able. This absurdity, however, appears to me 
justly chargeable upon the natural ability theory, 
taken in connection with the Scripture account 
of this matter. The Scriptures instruct us to 
look to God for strength ; that he gives us 
" power to become the children of God ;" 
that he " strengthens with might in the inner 
man, that we may be able" &c. This theory, 
however, tells us that we have an ability back 
of this ; an ability on which our responsibility 
turns, and by means of which we can become 
partakers of the grace of the Gospel. This is 
certainly to represent the Divine Being as taking 
measures to make ability able, and adding power 
to make adequate strength sufficiently strong. — 
Such is the work of supererogation which this 
theory charges upon the Gospel, for which its 
advocates alone arc answerable ; but let them 
not, without better ground, attempt to involve 



238 CALYirsISTIC CONTROVERSY, 



us in such an absurdity. But the strongest ob- 
jections, in the opinion of those who differ from 
us, are yet to come. They are of a doctrinal, 
rather than of a philosophical character, and are 
therefore more tangible, and will, for this rea- 
son, perhaps, be more interesting to the gene- 
rality of readers. Let us have patience, then, 
to follow them out. 

6. Doctrinal Objections. — On the ground of 
gracious ability it is objected that, 1. "As the 
consequence of Adam's fall, Adam himself and 
all his posterity became incapable of committing 
another sin." 2. " Every sinful action per- 
formed in this world, since the fall of Adam, has 
been the effect of supernatural grace." 3. 
" Man needed the grace of God, not because 
he was wicked, but because he was weak." 4. 
" The moral difference between one man and 
another is not to be ascribed to God." 5. "The 
posterity of Adam needed no Saviour to atone 
for actual sin." 6. " This opinion is inconsist- 
ent with the doctrine of grace." 7. "There 
can be no guilt in the present rebellion of the 
infernal regions." 8. " Is not this grace a greater 
calamity to our race than the fall of Adam ]" 

I have thrown these objections together, and 
presented them in connection to the reader, for 
the reason that they all rest mainly on one or 
two erroneous assumptions, to correct which will 
be substantially to answer them all. 

One erroneous assumption of this writer is, 
that "there is no free agency to do wrong, 
which is not adequate to do right." This writer 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 239 

seems to think this a self-evident proposition, 
which needs no proof; for although he has used 
it in argument a number of times, he has left 
it unsustained by any thing but his naked asser- 
tion. This proposition has already been denied, 
and an unqualified denial is all that in fairness 
can be claimed by an antagonist to meet an un- 
qualified assertion. Our object, however, is 
truth, and not victory. Let me request you 
then, reader, to look at this proposition. Can 
you see any self-evident proof of this assertion ? 
If the Creator should give existence to an intel- 
ligent being, and infuse into his created nature 
the elements of unrighteousness, and give to his 
faculties an irresistible bias to sin, and all this 
without providing a remedy, or a way for escape, 
then indeed all our notions of justice would de- 
cide that such a being ought not to be held re- 
sponsible. But this is not the case with any of 
the sinful beings of God's moral government. — 
Not of the fallen angels, for they had original 
power to stand, but abused it and fell — not of 
fallen man, for in the first place his is not a 
created depravity ; but, in the case of Adam, it 
was contracted by voluntary transgression when 
he had power to stand ; and in the case of his 
posterity, it is derived and propagated in the 
ordinary course of generation : and in the second 
place, a remedy is provided which meets the 
exigencies of man's moral condition, at the very 
commencement of his being. This it does by 
graciously preventing the imputation of guilt 
until man is capable of an intelligent survey of 



240 



CALVISISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



his moral condition ; for " as by the offence of 
one, judgment came upon all men unto conclein. 
nation : even so, by the righteousness of one, the 
free gift came upon all men unto justification of 
life." And when man becomes capable of mo- 
ral action, this same gracious remedy is suited 
to remove his native depravity, and to justify 
him from the guilt of actual transgression ; for 
" if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to 
forgive us our sins, and cleanse us from all un- 
righteousness." It does not appear, then, either 
from the obvious character of the proposition 
itself, or from the condition of sinful beings, that 
" the same free agency which enables a man to do 
wrong, will enable him also to do right." Hence 
it is not true that Adam, by the fall, lost his 
power to sin, or that there is now no sin in the 
infernal regions. It is true, the writer tries to 
sustain this idea farther, by asserting that " that 
ceases to be a moral wrong which is unavoida- 
ble ; for no being can be held responsible for 
doing what is unavoidable." This is little bet- 
ter, however, than a reiteration of the former 
assumption. If the character and Conduct of a 
being are not now, and never have been avoidable, 
then indeed he ought not to have guilt imputed 
to him. But to say that there is w no moral 
wrong" in the case, is to say that characters and 
actions are not wrong in themselves, even where 
it would not be just to impute guilt. And this 
is an idea which is implied also in another part 
of this writer's reasoning ; for he tells us that, 
according to the doctrine of gracious ability, 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 241 

" every sinful action performed in this world, 
since the fall of Adam, has been the effect of 
supernatural grace ;" and that " man needed 
the grace of God, not because he was wicked, 
but because he was weak," &c. This reason- 
ing, or rather these propositions, are predicated 
on the assumption, that there is no moral wrong 
where there is no existing ability to do right : in 
other words, that dispositions and acts of intel- 
ligent beings are not in themselves holy or unho- 
ly, but are so only in reference to the existing 
power of the being who is the subject of these 
dispositions and acts. 

But is this correct ? Sin may certainly exist 
where it would not be just to impute it to the 
sinner. For the apostle tejls us that "until the 
law sin was in the world ;" and yet he adds, 
" Sin is not imputed (he does not say sin does 
not exist,) where there is no law." The fact 
is, there are certain dispositions and acts that 
are in their nature opposite to holiness, whatever 
may be the power of the subject at the time he 
possesses this character or performs these acts. 
Sin is sin, and holiness is holiness, under all cir- 
cumstances. They have a positive, and not 
merely a relative existence. And although they 
have not existence abstract from an agent pos- 
sessing understanding, conscience, and will, still 
they may have an existence abstractly from the 
power of being or doing otherwise at the time. 
If not, then the new-born infant has no moral 
character, or he has power to become holy with 
his first breath. Whether the subject of this 
16 



242 



CALVIXISTIC CONTROVERSY, 



unavoidable sin shall be responsible for it, 
is a question to be decided by circumstances. 
If a being has had power, and lost it by his own 
avoidable act, then indeed he is responsible for 
his impotency — his very weakness becomes his 
crime, and every act of omission or commission 
resulting from his moral impotency, is justly 
imputed to him, the assertion of our objector to 
the pontrary notwithstanding. Hence it is in- 
correct to say there is now " no guilt in the re- 
bellion of the infernal regions." It is of little 
consequence whether, in this case, you assume 
that all the guilt is in the first act, by which the 
ability to do good was Lost, or in each successive 
act of sin, which was the unavoidable conse- 
quence of the first. In either case, the acts 
that follow are the measure of the guilt ; and 
hence, according to the nature of the mind, the 
consciousness of guilt will be constantly felt, as 
the acts occur. For all practical purposes, 
therefore, the sense of guilt, and the Divine 
administration of justice will be the same in either 
view of the subject. The writer supposes the 
case of "a servant's cutting off his hands to 
avoid his daily task/ 5 and says, ^ for this he is 
to blame, and ought to be punished ;" but thinks 
he ought not to be punished for his subsequent 
deficiencies. But I ask, How much is he to 
blame, and to what extent should he be punish- 
ed ? His guilt and punishment are to be mea- 
sured, certainly, by the amount of wrong he has 
done his master — that is, by every act of omis- 
sion consequent upon this act, which rendered 



CALVirsISTIC CONTROVERSY. 243 

these omissions unavoidable. Therefore he is 
justly punishable for every act of omission ; and 
you may refer this whole punishment to the first 
act exclusively, or to all the acts separately : it 
amounts to the same thing in the practical ad- 
ministration of government and of justice. In- 
deed, to say that each succeeding act is to be 
brought up and taken into the estimate, in order 
to fix the quantum of punishment, is to acknow- 
ledge that these succeeding acts are sins; else 
why should they be brought into the account at 
all, in estimating guilt and punishment ? Take 
another case. The ^drunkard destroys or sus- 
pends the right use of his reason, and then mur- 
ders. Is he to be held innocent of the murder 
because he was drunk ? or was the whole guilt 
of the murder to be referred to the act of getting 
intoxicated ] If you say the former, then no 
man is to be punished for any crime committed 
in a fit of intoxication ; and one has only to get 
intoxicated in order to be innocent. If you say 
the latter, then, as getting drunk is the same in 
one case as another, every inebriate is guilty of 
murder, and whatever other crimes drunkeness 
may occasion, or has occasioned. Is either of 
these suppositions correct ? Shall we not rather 
say that the inebriate's guilt is to be measured 
by the aggregate of crimes flowing from the 
voluntary act of drowning his reason ? And so 
in the case before us. Instead then of saying, 
that on our principles " there is no guilt in the 
present rebellion of the infernal regions," I would 
say that their present rebellion is the fruits and 



244 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



measure of their guilt. Thus we see, that a 
being who has had power and lost it, is guilty 
of his present acts. 

And by examination we shall find that by how 
much we enhance the estimated guilt of the first 
act, it is by borrowing so much from the acts of 
iniquity which follow. And will you then turn 
round and say, the acts which follow have no 
guilt ? Why have they no guilt ? Evidently 
because you have taken the amount of that guiit 
and attached it to the first act. And does this 
make these acts in themselves innocent 1 The 
idea is preposterous. As well may you say that 
the filthy streams of a polluted fountain are 
not impure in themselves, because but for the 
fountain they would not be impure ; as to say that 
the current of unholy volitions which unavoida- 
bly flows from a perverted heart is not unholy 
and criminal. 

Another clearly erroneous assumption of this 
writer is, that if it would be unjust for the Di- 
vine Being to leave his plan unfinished* after it 
is begun, the whole plan must be predicated on 
justice, and not on grace. It is true, he has 
not said this, in so many words, but his reason- 
ing implies it. For he says this scheme of gra- 
cious ability " annihilates the whole doctrine of 
grace." Because God, if he held man account- 
able, was bound to give him this ability, as a 
matter of justice ; hence it is not an ability by 
grace, but an ability by justice. The whole of 
this reasoning, and much more, goes upon the 
principle, that the completion of a plan of grace, 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 245 

after it is begun, cannot be claimed on the scale 
of justice, without making the whole a plan of 
justice. But is this true 1 Is not a father, 
after he has been instrumental of bringing a son 
into the world, bound in justice to provide for 
and educate him ? And yet does not the son 
owe a debt of gratitude to that father, when he 
has done all this ? If a physician should cut off 
the limb of a poor man, to save his life, is he 
not bound in justice, after he has commenced 
the operation, to take up the arteries and save 
the man from dying, by the operation. And if 
he should not do it, would he not be called a wan- 
ton and cruel wretch ? And yet in both these 
cases the persons may be unworthy. The son 
may show much obliquity of moral principle, 
and yet the father should bear with him, and 
discipline him. The man on whom the physi- 
cian operated may be poor and perverse. Here 
then are cases in which justice demands that un 
merited favour begun should be continued, or 
else what was favour in the commencement, and 
what would be favour in the whole, would never- 
theless by its incompleteness, be most manifest 
injustice. Such is the state of the question in 
respect to the Divine administration. The whole 
race of man had become obnoxious to the Divine 
displeasure, in their representative and federal 
head, by reason of his sin. This is expressly 
stated : " By the offence of one, judgment came 
upon all men to condemnation." " In Adam 
all die." In this situation we may suppose that 
the strict justice of the law required punish- 



246 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

ment in the very character in which the offence 
was committed. Adam personally and con- 
sciously sinned ; and so, according to justice, he 
must suffer. The prospective generations of 
men, existing seminally in him, as they had not 
consciously and personally sinned, could, in jus- 
tice, only experience the effects of the curse in 
the same character in which they sinned, viz. 
passively and seminally, unless provision could 
be made, by which, in their personal existence, 
they might free themselves from the effects of 
sin. Now God, in the plenitude of his wisdom 
and grace, saw fit to make provision for a new 
probation for man, on the basis of a covenant of 
grace, the different parts of which are all to be 
viewed together, in order to judge of their cha- 
racter. In this covenant Adam had a new trial ; 
and when the promise was made to him he 
stood in the same relation to his posterity as he 
did when he sinned, and the curse was out 
against him. If, by the latter, the prospective 
generations of men were justly cut off from pos- 
sible existence ; by the former this existence 
was mercifully secured to them. If by the 
corruption of the race, through sin, the possibili- 
ty of salvation was cut off, on all known princi- 
ples of administrative justice ; by the provisions 
of grace the possibility of salvation was secured 
to the whole race ; and this possibility implies 
every necessary provision to render grace avail- 
able and efficient, in accordance with moral 
responsibility. If " God, who spared not his 
own Son, but freely gave him up for us all/ 5 had 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 247 



&ot i4 with him also freely given us all things'* 
necessary for our salvation, would not the Divine 
procedure have been characterized both by folly 
and injustice ? If his plan of grace had only 
gone so far as to have given us a conscious be- 
ing, without giving us the means of making that 
existence happy, would it not have been wanton 
cruelty ? And yet, taking the whole together, 
who does not see that it is a most stupendous 
system of grace, from the foundation to the top- 
stone ? Let us not then be guilty of such mani- 
fest folly, as to take a part of the Divine admin- 
istration, and make up a judgment upon that, as 
viewed independently of the rest, and then trans- 
fer this abstract character to the whole. As in 
chemical combinations, though one of the ingre« 
dients taken alone might be deleterious, yet the 1 
compound may be nutritious or salutary, so 
in the new covenant, if we separate legal exac 
tions and penalties from gracious provisions, the 
operations of the former may be unjust and cruel, 
yet the whole, united as God hath combined 
them, may be an administration of unparalleled 
grace. It is in this heavenly combination that 
" mercy and truth are met together, righteous- 
ness and peace have kissed each other*" Now, 
therefore, u if we confess our sins, he is faithful 
and just to forgive us our sins," for on this ground 
he can be "just and the justiiier of them that 
believe." Although justice is thus involved in 
the system, and to leave out part of the system 
would be manifest injustice, yet the whole is the 
" blessed Gospel ;" " the Gospel of the grace of 



248 



CALVISISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



God." It is objected, I know, that the idea that, 
but for the provisions of the Gospel, man would 
not have propagated his species, is fanciful and 
unauthorized by Scripture. The Scriptures*, I 
grant, do not strike off into speculations about 
what God might have done, or would have done, 
if he had not done as he has. This is foreign 
from their design ; and I am perfectly willing 
to let the whole stand as the Scriptures present 
it. But when our opponents set the example 
of raising an objection to what we think the true 
system, by passing judgment on a part, viewed 
abstractly, we must meet them. On their 
own ground, then, I would say, the idea that 
man would have been allowed to propagate his* 
species, without any provisions of grace, is alto- 
gether fanciful and unauthorized by Scripture. 
Will it be said, that it seems more reasonable, 
and in accordance with the course of nature, to 
suppose that he would ? I answer, It seems to 
me more reasonable, and in accordance with 
the course of justice, to suppose that he would 
not. Whoever maintains that the personal 
existence of Adam's posterity was not implied 
and included in the provisions of grace, in the 
new covenant, must take into his theory one of 
the following appendages ; — he must either 
believe that the whole, race could justly be con- 
signed to personal and unavoidable wo, for the 
sin of Adam, or that all could be justly con- 
demned for the sin of their own nature, entailed 
upon them without their agency, and therefore 
equally unavoidable ; or he must believe that 



CALVIXISTIC CONTROVERSY. 24$ 



each would have a personal trial on the ground 
of the covenant of works, as Adam had. If 
there is another alternative, it must be some sys- 
tem of probation which God has never intimated, 
and man, in all his inventions has never devised. 
Whoever is prepared to adopt either of the two 
former propositions is prepared to go all lengths 
in the doctrine of predestination and reprobation 
charged upon Calvinism in the sermon that gave 
rise to this controversy, and, of course, will find 
his system subject to all the objections there 
urged against it. If any one chooses to adopt 
the third alternative, and consider all the posterity 
of Adam as standing or falling solely on the 
ground of the covenant of works, such a one 
need not be answered in a discussion purporting 
to be a " Cahinistlc controversy." He is a 
Socinian, and must be answered in another 
place. All that need be done here, is to show 
the embarrassments of Calvinism projier, the 
utter futility of all its changes to relieve itself 
from these embarrassments, unless it plunge 
into Pelagianism and Socinianism, or rest itself 
upon the Arminian foundation of gracious ability. 
It is on this latter ground we choose to rest, 
because here, and here alone, we find the doc- 
trines of natural depravity, human ability and 
responsibility, and salvation by grace, blending 
in beautiful harmony. 

Having noticed some of the erroneous assump- 
tions on which the doctrinal objections to our 
theory are based, the objections themselves, I 
think, may all be disposed of in a summary 



250 



CALVIXISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



way. We see, on our plan, that, 1. Adain did 
not render himself incapable of sinning, by the 
fall, but rather rendered himself and his posteri- 
ty incapable of any other moral exercise but 
what was sinful ; and it was on this account 
that a gracious ability is necessary, in order to 
a second probation. 2. Sin, since the fall, has 
not been the result of supernatural grace, but the 
natural fruit of the fall ; and supernatural grace 
is all that has counteracted sin. 3. " Man 
needed the grace of God," both " because he 
was wicked," and " because he was Weak." — 
4. " The moral difference between one man 
and another is — to be ascribed to God." How 
any one could think a contrary opinion charge- 
able upon us, is to me surprising. It is more 
properly Calvinism that is chargeable with this 
sentiment. Calvinism says, Regeneration is a 
right choice. It says, also, that power to sin 
implies power to be holy ; and of course we be- 
come holy by the same power as that by which 
we sin. And it farther says, that the power is 
of nature and not of grace. Now let the reader- 
put all these together, and see if it does not fol- 
low most conclusively, that " the moral differ- 
ence between one man and another is not to be 
ascribed to God." But, on the contrary, we say 
the sinful nature of man is changed in regene- 
ration by the power of the Holy Ghost. 5. 
" The posterity of Adam" did " need a Saviour 
to atone for actual sin." For actual sin is the 
result, not of gracious power, as this author sup- 
poses, but of a sinful nature voluntarily retained 



CALV1NISTIC CONTROVERSY. 251 

and indulged. If our opponents charge us with 
the sentiment, that grace is the cause of the 
actual sin of Adam's posterity, because we hold 
that grace was the cause of their personal exist- 
ence, we grant that, in that sense, grace was a 
cause without which the posterity of Adam would 
not have sinned. But if this makes God the 
author of sin, by the same rule we could prove 
that God is the author of sin, because he created 
moral agents — and if there is any difficulty here, 
it presses on them as heavily as on us. But in 
any other sense, grace is not the cause of sin* 

6. " This opinion is," as we have seen, per- 
fectly " consistent with the doctrine of grace." 

7. " There is" constant 6: guilt in the present 
rebellion of the infernal regions." 8'. " This 
grace is a greater" blessing " to our race than 
the fall of Adam" was a " calamity ;" for 
" where sin abounded, grace did much more 
abound." 

Thus I have endeavoured to explain, prove, 
and defend the doctrine of gracious ability, a 
doctrine always maintained in the orthodox 
Church, until the refinements of Calvinism made 
it necessary to call it in question ; and a doc- 
trine on which, viewed in its different bearings, 
the orthodox Arminian system must stand or 
fall. I have been the more minute and extend- 
ed in my remarks from this consideration ; and 
also from the consideration that while this doc- 
trine has of late been most violently assailed by 
all classes of Calvinists, very little has been pub- 
lished in its defence, If the reader has had 



252 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

patience to follow the subject through, he is 
now perhaps prepared to judge whether our 
holy volitions are the result of a gracious ability 
or of natural power. 

Should I find time to pursue this subject far- 
ther, it would be in place now to examine the 
doctrine of regeneration ; in which examination 
the nature of inherent depravity, and of that 
choice which is conditional to the new birth, 
would be more fully noticed. " This will I do 
if God permit." 



NUMBER XIII. 

REGENERATION. 

An important error in any one cardinal doc- 
trine of the Gospel will make a glaring deformity 
in the entire system. Hence when one of these 
doctrines is marred or perverted, a corresponding 
change must be made in most or all of the others 
to keep up the appearance of consistency. 

These remarks apply with special emphasis to 
the doctrine of regeneration. As this is a focal 
point, in which many other leading doctrines cen- 
tre, this doctrine must of necessity give a cha- 
racter to the whole Gospel plan. This might 
be inferred a priori from the knowledge of the 
relation of this to the other parts of the Chris- 
tian system, and it is practically illustrated in 
the history of the Church. There are those 
who believe, that by the various terms used in 



CALVIXISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



253 



Scripture to express the change commonly cal- 
led regeneration or the new birth, nothing is 
intended but some outward ceremony, or some 
change of opinion in matters of speculative be- 
lief or the like. Some say it is baptism, or a 
public profession of faith ; others that it is a 
mere speculative renunciation of heathen idola- 
try, and an acknowledgment of the Christian 
faith ; others that it is merely a reformed life ; and 
a few maintain that it is the change that we 
shall undergo by death, or by the resurrection 
of the body. These persons, and all in fact who 
make the new birth something short of a radi- 
cal change of heart, are obliged, for consisten- 
cy's sake, to accommodate the other doctrines to 
their views of regeneration. Hence they very 
generally deny constitutional or derived depra- 
vity, the inflexibility and rigorous exactions of 
the Divine law, the destructive character of sin, 
the atonement, the supernatural agency of the 
Spirit upon the human heart, justification by 
faith, and the like. Thus a radical error on one 
point actually leads to another gospel — if gospel 
it may be called. 

It does not come within the scope of my pre- 
sent design to enter into a refutation qf the fore- 
going errors. But from the disastrous results 
of these errors we may infer the importance of 
guarding carefully and of understanding clearly 
the Scripture doctrine of the new birth. Even 
where the error is not so radical, as in the in- 
stances above alluded to, the evil may be consi- 
derable, and in some cases fatal. 



254 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



The Arminians and Calvinists agree in this 
doctrine, in so far as that they both make it a 
radical change of moral nature, by the superna- 
tural agency of the Holy Ghost. But they dif- 
fer in respect to the order in which the several 
parts of the change take place — in respect to 
the manner and degree of the agency of the 
Holy Spirit, and also in respect to the part 
which human agency has in the accomplishment 
of this change. And in some, if not all of these 
points, Calvinists differ as much from each other 
as they do from us. 

It is my present purpose to point out some of 
the more prominent Calvinistic modes of stating 
and explaining this doctrine, with the difficulties 
attending them : after which I shall endeavour 
to present and defend what we believe to be the 
Scripture doctrine of regeneration. 

First Theory, — The notion that the mind is 
entirely passive in this change, that is, that no- 
thing is done by the subject of it, which is pre- 
parative or conditional, or in any way co-opera- 
tive in its accomplishment, has been a prevailing 
sentiment in the various modifications of the old 
Calvinistic school. It is not indeed pretended 
that the mind is inactive, either before or at the 
time this renovation is effected by the Holy Spi- 
rit. On the contrary, it is said that the sinner 
is resisting with all the power of the mind, and 
with all the obstinacy of the most inveterate 
enmity, up to the very moment, and in the very 
act of conversion. So that the sinner is regene- 
rated, not only without his co-operation, but also 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



255 



in spite of his utmost resistance. Hence it is 
maintained, that, but for the irresistible influence 
of the Holy Ghost upon the heart, no sinner 
would be converted. 

1. One of the leading objections to this view 
of conversion is, that it is inseparably connected 
with the doctrine of particular and unconditional 
election. The two reciprocally imply each 
other, and must therefore, stand or fall together. 
But this doctrine of particular and unconditional 
election has been sufficiently refuted,*it is hoped, 
in the sermon that gave rise to this controversy ; 
if so, then the doctrine of passivity and irresisti- 
ble grace is not true. 

2. Another very serious difficulty which this 
theory of conversion has to contend with is, 
that the Scriptures, in numerous passages, de- 
clare that the Spirit of God may be resisted, 
grieved, quenched, and utterly disregarded ; and 
that the grace of God may be abused, or re- 
ceived in vain. The passages to establish these 
propositions are so frequent that I need not stop 
to point them out. But if this be so, then the 
grace of God and the Spirit of grace are not 
irresistible. 

3. It may be yet farther objected to this doc- 
trine of the mind's passivity in conversion, that 
it is a virtual denial of all gracious influence 
iupon the heart before regeneration. It has been 
shown in previous numbers that man was not 
able to comply with the conditions of salvation 
without grace — and that the gracious influences 
of the Divine Spirit are given to every sinner 



256 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



previous to regeneration. But there would be 
no necessity for this, and no consistency in it, if 
there are no conditions and no co-operation on 
the part of the sinner in the process of the new 
birth. Hence the advocates of this doctrine 
very consistently maintain that the first act of 
grace upon the heart of the sinner is that 
which regenerates him. Since then this theory 
conflicts with the Bible doctrine of a gracious 
influence anterior to conversion, it cannot be 
admitted. * 

4. This theory of regeneration removes all 
conditions on the part of the sinner to the remo- 
val of the power and guilt of sin. It teaches 
that if the sinner should do any thing acceptable 
to God, as a condition to his conversion, it would 
imply he did not need converting ; that such an 
idea, in fact, would be inconsistent with the doc- 
trine of depravity, and irreconcilable with the 
idea of salvation by grace. And this is the 
ground on which the old Calvinists have so re- 
peatedly charged us with the denial of the doc- 
trines of grace, and with holding that we may be 
justified by our works. 

There is something very singular in these no- 
tions respecting the necessity of unconditional 
regeneration, in order that it may be by grace. 
These same Calvinists tell us that the sinner can 
repent, and ought to repent, and that the Scrip- 
tures require it at his hand. What ! is the sin- 
ner able and obliged to do that which would 
destroy the whole economy of grace ! which 
would blot out the Gospel and nullify the atone- 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 257 

ment itself? Ought he to do that which would 
prove him a practical Pelagian and an operative 
workmonger ? Is he indeed, according to Cal- 
vinists themselves, required in Scripture to do 
that which would prove Calvinism false, and a 
conditional regeneration true 1 So it would 
seem. Put together these two dogmas of Cal- 
vinism. 1. The sinner is able, and ought to re- 
'pent, 2. The idea that the sinner does any thing 
toward his regeneration destroys the doctrine of 
depravity and of salvation by grace, I say put 
these two together, and you have almost all the 
contradictions of Calvinism converged to a focus 
— and what is most fatal to the system, you have 
the authority of Calvinism itself to prove that 
every intelligent probationer on the earth not 
only has the ability, but is authoritatively requi- 
red to give practical demonstration that the sys- 
tem is false ! ! What is this but to say, " You 
can, and you cannot — if you do not, you will 
be justly condemned — if you do, you will ruin 
the Gospel system, and yourself with it ? Where 
such glaring paradoxes appear, there must be 
something materially wrong in, at least, some 
parts of the system. 

5. But the inconsistency of this theory is not 
its only, and certainly not its most injurious cha- 
racteristic. In the same proportion as men are 
made to believe that there are no conditions on 
their part to their regeneration, they will be 
likely to fall into one of the two extremes of 
carelessness or despair, either of which, per- 
sisted in, would be ruinous. I cannot doubt but 
17 

. - . • < . i 



258 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



that, in this way, tens of thousands have been 
ruined. We should infer that such would be the 
result of the doctrine, from only understanding 
its character ; and I am fully satisfied that, in 
my own personal acquaintance, I have met with 
hundreds who have been lulled in the cradle of 
Antinomianism on the one hand, or paralyzed 
with despair on the other, by this same doctrine 
of passive, unconditional conversion. Caivin- 
ists, it is true, tell us this is the abuse of the 
doctrine ; but it appears to me to be the legiti- 
mate fruit. What else could we expect ? A 
man might as well attempt to dethrone the Me- 
diator, as to do any thing toward his own con- 
version. Teach this, and carelessness ensues, 
Antinomian feelings will follow — or if you 
arouse the mind by the curse of the law, and 
by the fearful doom that awaits the unregene- 
rate, what can he do 1 Nothing ! Hell rises 
from beneath to meet him, but he can do nothing. 
He looks until he is excited to phrensy, from 
which he very probably passes over to raving 
madness, or settles down into a state of gloomy 
despair. 

6. Another very decisive objection to this 
doctrine is, the frequent, and I may say uniform 
language of Scripture. The Scriptures require 
us to seek — ask — knock — come to Cluist — look 
unto God — repent — believe — open the door of the 
heart — receive Christ, &c. No one can fail to 
notice how these instructions are sprinkled over 
the whole volume of revelation. And what is 
specially in point here, all these are spoken of 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 259 



and urged upon us as conditions of blessings that 
shall follow — even the blessings of salvation, of 
regeneration — and as conditions, too, without 
which we cannot expect these blessings. Take 
one passage of many — "As many as received 
him, to them gave he power to become the sons 
of God, even to them that believe on his name." 
If any one doubts whether " becoming the sons 
of God," as expressed in this text, means rege- 
neration, the next verse will settle it — " Which 
were born not of blood, nor of the will of the 
flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God," John 
i, 12, 13. The latter verse I may have occa- 
sion to remark upon hereafter ; it is quoted here 
to show that the new birth is undoubtedly the 
subject here spoken of. And we are here ex- 
pressly taught, in language that will bear no 
other interpretation, that receiving Christ and 
believing on his name are the conditions of re- 
generation. If there were no other passage in 
the Bible to direct our minds on this subject, 
this plairr unequivocal text ought to be decisive. 
But the truth is, this is the uniform language of 
Scripture. And are there any passages against 
these, any that say we cannot come, cannot be- 
lieve, seek, &c ? or any that say, this work of 
personal regeneration is performed independent 
of conditions ? I know of none which will not 
fairly admit of a different construction. We 
are often met with this passage — " It is not of 
him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of 
God that showeth mercy." See Rom. ix, 16. 
But whoever interpreted this of personal and 



260 CALVIXISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

individual regeneration can hardly have exam- 
ined the passage carefully and candidly. But 
we are told again, it is God that renews the 
heart ; and if it is his work, it is not the work of 
the sinner. I grant this ; this is the very senti- 
ment I mean to maintain ; but then there may 
be conditions — there are conditions — or else we 
should not hear the psalmist praying for this, in 
language that has been preserved for the edifi- 
cation of all subsequent generations, " Create in 
me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spi- 
rit within me." This is a practical comment on 
Christ's conditional salvation, " Ask and ye shall 
receive." 

Since then this doctrine of passive and uncon- 
ditional regeneration implies unconditional elec- 
tion — since it is in opposition to those scriptures 
which teach that the Spirit and grace of God 
may be resisted and received in vain — since it is 
a virtual denial of all gracious influences upon 
the heart before regeneration — since it leads the 
abettors of the theory into gross contradictions, 
by their endeavours to reconcile the can and the 
cannot of their system— since its practical ten- 
dency is to make sinners careless, or drive them 
to despair — and finally, since it contradicts that 
numerous class of scriptures, some of which are 
very unequivocal, that predicate the blessings 
of regeneration and justification upon certain 
preparatory and conditional acts of the sinner — 
therefore we conclude that this theory cannot be 
true. 

Second Theory. — To avoid these difficulties, 



CALVIXISTIC CONTROVERSY. 261 

to make the sinner feel his responsibility, and to 
bring him into action, a new theory of regenera- 
tion is proposed. This constitutes a leading 
characteristic of the New Divinity. It is the 
theory of self -conversion. Its advocates main- 
tain that there is no more mystery or superna- 
tural agency in the process of the change, call- 
ed the new birth, than there is in any other 
leading purpose or decision of the mind. It is 
true, they do not wholly exclude the Holy Spirit 
from this work, but his agency is mediate and 
indirect. He acts in some undefinable way, 
through the truth as an instrument. The truth 
acts upon the mind, in the way of moral suasion, 
and the sinner, in the view and by the influence 
of truth, resolves to give himself up to God and 
to his service — and this is regeneration. The 
preparation is of God— but the actual change is 
man's own work. The God of providence re- 
veals the truth and arranges the means for its 
promulgation, the Spirit of grace applies it to 
the understanding, the sinner looks at it, reflects 
upon it, and at length is persuaded to set about 
the work, and regenerates himself! 

That we may be the better prepared to meet 
this hypothesis, it should be noticed that it is 
inseparable from the notion that all sin consists 
in voluntary exercise, or in other words, in a 
series of sinful volitions. Regeneration is a 
change from sin to holiness — and hence a rege- 
nerate state is the opposite of a sinful state. If 
then a regenerate state is nothing more than a 
series of holy volitions, an unregenerate state, 



262 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



which is its opposite, is nothing more than a se- 
ries of unholy volitions. Thus it appears that 
this doctrine of regeneration by the act of the 
will must stand or fall with the notion that all sin 
consists in voluntary exercise; Any argument, 
therefore, brought against this latter theory will 
bear with equal weight against this new idea of 
regeneration. Bearing this in mind, we are 
prepared to object to this doctrine, 

1. That it is inconsistent with the doctrine of 
constitutional depravity. This is granted by the 
supporters of the theory, and hence constitu- 
tional depravity is no part of their system. All 
the arguments therefore that have been adduced 
in favour of derived, inherent depravity, or that 
can be urged in favour of this doctrine, will stand 
directly opposed to this view of regeneration. 
The arguments in favour of our views of depra- 
vity need not be repeated ; and the reader is re- 
ferred to a previous number in which this point 
has been discussed. 

2. Another objection to this theory of regene- 
ration is, that it makes entire sanctification take 
place at the time of regeneration. Conversion, 
holiness, are nothing more than a decision of 
the will ; and since the will can never be more 
than decided, of course the decision at regenera- 
tion is the perfection of holiness. On this ground, 
therefore, though Christians are exhorted to 
" cleanse themselves from all filthiness of flesh 
and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of the 
Lord ;" though the saints are commanded to 
"grow in grace," to "confess their sins," that 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



263 



they may be " cleansed from all unrighteousness" 
though some of the Corinthian Christians were 
" carnal and walked as men," and for that rea- 
son were, after years of experience, only babes 
in Christ — still, if we embrace this sentiment, 
we must call the convert, at his first spiritual 
breath, as holy as he ever can be in any of the 
subsequent stages of his experience ! Surely the 
apostles taught not this ! And yet so strongly 
are men impelled forward by their systems, this 
doctrine of perfect holiness at conversion is the 
very sentiment that many of the advocates of the 
New Divinity are now propagating — a clear 
proof that it necessarily follows from their theory 
of conversion. This of itself, it strikes me, 
ought to destroy the doctrine. 

3. Another bearing of this hypothesis, and one 
which I think must prove fatal to it, is, that the 
Scriptures represent this change to be chiefly in 
the affections, whereas this doctrine makes it 
exclusively in the will. That the Scriptures 
place the change in the affections chiefly, I sup- 
pose will not be denied. If it should be, with- 
out stopping here to quote specific passages, or 
use many arguments, one consideration alone 
will be sufficient to set the question at rest. — 
True evangelical holiness consists in love to God 
and man; and sin is loving the creature rather 
than the Creator. The apostle brings into 
view both the regenerate and the unregenerate 
state in this passage — " Set your affection on 
things above, and not on things on the earth." 
Numerous are the passages which teach that 



264 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY, 




love to God is the essence of the Christian cha- 
racter. The affections, therefore, are the seat 
of this change. But we are told by this new 
theory the change is in the will. It is only to 
resolve to serve God, and we are converted. — 
Either this theory, therefore, or the Bible account 
of this matter must be wrong, 

To avoid this difficulty, it may be said, that a 
change of the will implies a change of the affec- 
tions. But this is changing the position — which 
is, that a decision of the will is regeneration. If 
however this new position be insisted upon, it 
can be reconciled with the phraseology used 
only by making a change of the affections a 
mere subordinate part of regeneration, whereas 
the Scriptures make the change consist essen- 
tially in this. But there is still a more serious 
difficulty in this idea, that the change of the 
will implies a change in the affections. It ne- 
cessarily implies that the affections are at all 
times under the control of the will. But this 
is as un philosophical as it is unscriptural. It is 
even directly contrary to the observation and 
knowledge of men who have paid only common 
and casual attention to mental phenomena. The 
will is oftener enthralled by the affections, than 
the affections by the will. Even in common 
and worldly matters let a man try by an effort 
of the will to beget love where it does not exist, 
or to transfer the affections from one object to 
another, and how will he succeed ? Will love 
and hatred go or come at his bidding ? You 
might as well attempt, by an act of the will, to 



CALVIXISTIC CONTROVERSY. 265 

make sweet bitter, or bitter sweet to the physi- 
cal taste. How much less can a man, by an 
act of the will, make all things new, and trans- 
fer the heart from the grossness of creature love 
to the purity of supreme love to God. The 
Apostle Paul has taught us his failure in this 
matter. When he " would do good, evil was 
present with him." " For," says he, " the good 
that I would do, I do not ; but the evil which I 
would not, that I do." And this is the fact in 
most cases of genuine awakening. Resolutions 
are formed, but the current of the unsanctified 
affections sweeps them away. Over the unto- 
wardness of the un regenerate heart the will has, 
in fact, but a feeble influence ; and this is the 
reason why the man, struggling with the cor- 
ruptions of his heart, is driven to despair, and 
exclaims, " O ! wretched man that I am, who 
shall deliver me from the body of this death ?" 

We shall see hereafter how the action of the 
will is indispensable in regeneration ; but not in 
this direct way to change and control the affec- 
tions, by the power of its own decisions. W^hen 
I find my will capable of doing this, I must have 
an essentially different intellectual character from 
the one I now have. 

Since the Scriptures make the new birth a 
change of affections, and this theory makes it 
a change of volitions ; and especially since the 
affections cannot be transferred from earth to 
heaven by a mere act of the will, therefore the 
doctrine which teaches and implies these views 
must be false. 



266 



CALVIXISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



4. This idea of the character of sin and of 
the new birth makes man sinless, at particular 
times, even without regeneration. I do not 
mean by this that he is not obnoxious to punish- 
ment for past unholy volitions. But if sin con- 
sists only in voluntary exercise, whenever the 
mind does not act ; or whenever its action is not 
under the control of the will, there is nothing 
of sin personally appertaining to the man. — 
When the action of the will is suspended by an 
all-absorbing emotion of wonder or surprise — in 
sound sleep when the mental states, if there are 
any, are not under the control of the will — in 
cases of suspended animation, by drowning, 
fainting, or otherwise — in short, whenever the 
mind is necessarily wholly engrossed, as is often 
the case, by some scientific investigation, or 
matter of worldly business, not of a moral cha- 
racter, then, and in every such case, whatever 
may be the guilt for past transgressions, there 
is no personal unholiness. And by the same 
reasoning we may show that the regenerate pass 
a great portion of their time without any per- 
sonal holiness ! 

5. According to the theory we are opposing, 
regeneration, strictly speaking, means nothing. 
The work of grace, by which a sinner is made 
meet for heaven, embraces two essential points, 
'pardon and renewal. The former is not a posi- 
tive change of character, but a relative change, 
from a state of condemnation to a state of ac- 
quittal. But as regeneration, if it have any ap- 
propriate meaning, cannot mean a mere change 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



267 



of relation, any construction or system that for- 
ces such a meaning upon it does, in fact, do it 
away. Hence, being born again, being re- 
newed, being created anew, being sanctified, being 
translated from darkness to light, being raised 
from the dead, and numerous other scripture 
expressions, are figurative forms of speech, so 
foreign from the idea they are used to express, 
that they are worse than unmeaning — they lead 
to error. But if these expressions mean any 
thing more than pardon, what is that meaning? 
This doctrine makes the principal change take 
place in the neighbourhood of the will ; not in 
the will itself, meaning by that, the mental power 
by which we put forth volitions. This faculty 
of the mind is sound, and needs no change — all 
the other mental susceptibilities are sound, the 
essence of the mind and the susceptibilities of 
the mind are perfectly free from any moral per- 
version. It is the mental action that is bad. — 
What is there then in the man that is to be 
changed ? Do you say his volitions ? But these 
he changes every hour. Do you say, he must 
leave off wrong volitions, and have right ones ? 
This too he often does. " But he must do it 
with right motives/' you say, " and this acting 
from right motives is the regenerate state." In- 
deed ! Suppose then that he has resolved to 
serve God, from right motives, what if he should 
afterward resolve, from false shame or fear, to 
neglect a duty, is he now unregenerate ? This 
is changing from regenerate to unregenerate, 
from entire holiness to entire unholiness with a 



268 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

breath. Truly such a regeneration is nothing. 
But you say, after he has once submitted, he 
now has a " governing purpose" to serve God, 
and this constitutes him regenerate ; aye, a gov- 
erning purpose that does not govern him. Let 
it be understood, you cannot divide a volition ; it 
has an entire character in itself; and if it be 
unholy, no preceding holy volition can sanctify 
it. Hence every change of volition from wrong 
to right, and from right to wrong, is a change of 
state, so that regeneracy and unregeneracy play 
in and out of the human bosom in the alterna- 
tion of every criminal thought or every pious 
aspiration. Is this the Bible doctrine of the 
new birth? And yet this is all you can make 
of it, if you resolve it into the mere action of 
the will. 

6. This doctrine of self- conversion, by an act 
of the will, is directly contrary to Scripture. It 
would be tedious to me and my readers to quote 
all those passages that attribute this work di- 
rectly to the Holy Spirit, and that speak of it 
as a work which God himself accomplishes for, 
and in us. There is one passage which is much 
in point, however, and is sufficient of itself to 
settle this question. "But as many as received 
him, to them gave he power to become the sons 
of God, even to them that believe on his name. 
Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of 
the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God," 
John i, 12, 13. This is a two-edged sword — 
it cuts off, as we have remarked before, passive 
and unconditional regeneration on the one hand ; 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 269 

and also, as we may now see, self-con version by 
an act of the will, on the other. I know not 
how words can be put together, in so small a 
compass, better to answer the true objects of 
destroying these two opposite theories of rege- 
neration, and asserting the true theory. Here 
is, first — the receiving of Christ, the believing 
on his name — this is the condition. Second, 
Christ gives the " power," viz. strength and pri- 
vilege, to become the sons of God. This is the 
regeneration. Third — This becoming " the sons 
of God," or being " born," is not in a physical 
way, by flesh and blood, nor yet by human will, 
but of or by God. . Can any thing be clearer or 
more decisive ? 

Indeed the very terms, regeneration, horn, birth, 
&c, imply of themselves another and an efficient 
agent ; and then to connect these with the Di- 
vine agency, as the Scriptures have done some 
half dozen times in the phrase, " born of God," 
and several other times in the phrase, " born of 
the Spirit :" to have this called being " begotten 
again," and the like, is enough, one would think, 
if words have any meaning, to show that man 
does not change his own heart. The same may 
be said of the terms resurrection, translation, 
creation, renewal, and various other terms the 
Scriptures use to express this change. Jesus 
Christ claimed that he had " power to lay down 
his life, and to take it again but this is the 
only instance of self-resurrection power that we 
read of; and even this was by his Divine na- 
ture ; for he was 6i quickened by the Spirit," and 



270 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

raised "by the power of God." But these theo- 
rists teach that man has power to lay down his 
life, and then, after he is " dead in trespasses 
and sins," he has power to take his life again. 
Truly this is giving man a power that approaches 
very near to one of the Divine attributes. To 
Christ alone does it belong " to quicken whom 
he will." To change the heart of the sinner is 
one of the Divine prerogatives, and he that at- 
tempts to convert himself, and trusts to this, will 
find in the end that he is carnal still. For 
"whatsoever is born of the flesh is flesh, but 
whatsoever is born of the Spirit is spirit." 

Let me not here be misunderstood. I shall 
endeavour to show, in its proper place, the con- 
ditional agency of man in this work. I have 
only time to add, in this number, that I consider 
those scriptures which press duties upon the 
sinner as applying to this conditional agency. 
And even those strong expressions which some- 
times occur in the Bible, requiring the sinner to 
" make himself a new heart" — " to cleanse his 
hands and purify his heart," &c, will find an easy 
solution and a pertinent application in this view 
of the subject. For if there are certain pend- 
ing conditions, without which the work will not 
be accomplished, then there would be a propri- 
ety, while pressing this duty, to use expressions 
showing that this work was conditionally, though 
not efficiently, resting upon the agency of the 
sinner. 

In my next I shall endeavour to show that 
there is no intermediate Calvinistic ground be- 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 271 



tween the two theories examined in this number. 
If that attempt prove successful, and if in this it 
has been found that the two theories examined 
are encumbered with too many embarrassments 
to be admitted, then we shall be the better pre- 
pared to listen to the teachings of the Scriptures 
on this important and leading doctrine of the 
Christian faith. 



NUMBER XIV. 

REGENERATION, CONTINUED. 

An inconsistency in any received theory is 
constantly driving its supporters to some modifi- 
cation of their system. This is a redeeming 
principle in the human mind, and greatly en- 
courages the hope that truth will finally 
triumph. 

It has already been noticed that the doctrine 
of entire passivity, in regeneration, is so pressed 
with difficulties that it has sought relief in the 
opposite notion of self-conversion. But this 
latter hypothesis is, in turn, encumbered, if 
possible, with still greater embarrassments. 
The presumption therefore is, that the truth lies 
between them ; and it will doubtless be found, 
by a fair and thorough investigation, that this is 
the fact. But here the question arises, Can 
Calvinists consistently occupy any such middle 
ground? In other words, retaining the other 
peculiarities of Calvinism, can our Calvinistic 



272 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

brethren assume any position between these two 
extremes which will avoid the difficulties of 
both ? A brief examination, it is hoped, will de- 
cide this question. 

Third Theory. — Dr. Tyler is a highly re- 
spectable clergyman of the Calvinistic faith, 
and is now at the head of the theological school 
in East Windsor, Conn., which was got up with 
the avowed purpose of counteracting the New- 
Haven theology. We should not therefore sus- 
pect him of leaning too much toward the New 
Divinity. He tells us that the only depravity 
is to be unwilling to serve God — that there is 
" no other obstacle in the way of the sinner's 
salvation except what lies in his own will" — that 
" to be born again is simply to be made willing 
to do what God requires." What is this but 
the New Divinity I The will is here made, 
most explicitly, the sole seat of depravity ; and 
regeneration is an act of the will. But eveiy 
act of the will is the sinner's own act, and there- 
fore the agent, by that act of the will which 
constitutes regeneration, converts himself. — 
Perhaps Dr. Tyler will say, the sinner in this 
case does not convert himself, because he is 
" made willing" God makes him willing " in 
the day of his power." It is remarkable what 
a favourite phrase this is with the Calvinists. 
It is borrowed from the third verse of the hun- 
dred and tenth Psalm, "Thy people shall be 
willing in the day of thy power." Now 
although the word u made" is not in the text ; 
although there is not the slightest evidence that 



CALV1NISTIC CONTROVERSY. 273 

the text speaks of regeneration at all, but on 
the contrary, it is most evidently intended to 
describe the character and conduct of God's 
people, viz. the regenerate ; and although every 
scholar, at least, among the Calvinists, knows 
this as well as he knows his right hand from the 
left, yet we hear it repeated by the learned and 
the ignorant, at all times and places — " God's 
people are made willing in the day of his power." 
It is not only a gross perversion of a Scripture 
phrase, but its repetition^ in this perverted sense, 
renders it wearisome and sickening. But, waiv- 
ing this, it becomes us to ask whether there is 
any more rational or Scriptural ground for the 
idea itself than there is for this use of the text. 
What is meant by making the soul willing ! 
I confess I cannot understand it. Is it meant 
that God forces the soul to be willing ! This is 
a contradiction in terms. To say that God acts 
directly on the will, and thus changes its deter- 
mination by superior force, is to destroy its 
freedom — is to produce a volition without mo- 
tive or reason — which would, at any rate, be an 
anomalous action of the will. And what is still 
more fatal to the theory, it implies no act of the 
sinner whatever, but an irresistible act of the 
Divine power, which therefore necessarily throws 
the theory back upon the doctrine of passive 
conversion. There is no avoiding this conclu- 
sion, I think, on the ground that God changes 
the action of the will, by an exertion of power 
upon the will itself. If, to avoid this, it should 
be said that the will is not changed by a direct 
18 



274 



CALVIXISTIC CONTROVERSY*. 



act of power, but influenced to a holy determi- 
nation indirectly, through the medium of motives, 
presented by the Holy Spirit— then and in that 
case we should be thrown forward on to the 
self-conversion system. The sinner's voluntary 
act, by which he regenerated himself, would be 
as truly and entirely Ms own as any other act of 
the will ; therefore he would be self- regenerated. 
This also would be regeneration, not by the 
Holy Spirit, but by the truth ; which is another 
feature of the New Divinity. This also would 
make all depravity consist in the will, or rather 
in its acts ; which has been shown in the pre- 
ceding number to be unscriptural as well as 
unphilosophical. This objection is valid, whether 
the depravity is supposed to be in the power of 
willing, or in the acts of the will. But since, in 
Dr. Tyler's view, to will in one direction is de- 
pravity, and to will in another direction is 
regeneration, and since all that motives can do 
is, not to change the will itself, but only prompt 
it to new voluntary states, it follows conclusively 
that Dr. T. makes all holiness and all unholiness 
consist in volitions ; and therefore the moral- 
exercise system is true ; which is another feature 
of the New Divinity. Truly I may repeat, we 
do not need another theological seminary in 
Connecticut to teach this doctrine. 

Finally, according to this theory of Dr. T., 
he and all those who reason like him* are 
chargeable, I think, with a palpable paralogism — 
they reason in a circle. They say, in the ex- 
press language of Dr. Tyler, " All men may be 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 275 



saved if they will" — " No man is hindered 
from coming to Christ who is willing to come" — 
that is, since to will and to be willing is to be 
regenerated, this language gravely teaches us, 
" All men may be saved, if they are regene- 
rated" — " No man is hindered from coming to 
Christ (to be regenerated) who is regenerated I" 
And indeed this view of regeneration not only 
makes learned divines talk nonsense, but the 
Scriptures also. The invitation, " Whosoever 
will, let him come," &c, must mean, 66 Whoso- 
ever is regenerate, let him come," and so of 
other passages. Thus this theory of Dr. Tyler, 
and of the many who hold with him, is so 
closely hemmed in on both sides, that it must 
throw itself for support, either upon the doctrine 
of passivity, or self-conversion ; at the same 
time that in other respects it involves itself in 
inconsistent and anti-scriptural dogmas. 

But that we may leave no position unexam- 
ined, let us take another view of the subject. 
Suppose, instead of saying regeneration is 
simply a change of the will, it should be argued 
that a change of the will implies a change of 
the affections, and this therefore is included in 
regeneration. Then I would ask, whether this 
change of the affections is in the order of cause 
and effect, or in the order of time, prior or sub- 
sequent to the act of the will. If this change 
is prior to any action of the will in the case, 
then the sinner has no voluntary co-operation 
in the work ; and this brings us up once more 
upon the doctrine of passive regeneration. The 



276 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

heart is changed before the subject of the change 
acts. If the action of the will precedes the 
change of the heart, then this change will be 
effected in one of two ways. Either this ante- 
rior volition does itself change the heart ; or it 
is a mere preparatory condition, on occasion 
of which God changes the heart. In the former 
case the man himself would change his own 
heart, and this is self con version ; and in the 
latter alternative we have a conditional regene- 
ration wrought by the Holy Ghost, and this is 
the very doctrine for which we contend, in oppo- 
sition to Calvinism. If it should be said, this 
change of the will and this change of the heart 
take place independent of each other, that would 
not help the matter, since in this view the change 
of heart would be passive and unconditional. 
Thus whichever way this system turns, its diffi- 
culties press upon it still, and it finds no relief. 
Indeed there can, as I conceive, be no interme- 
diate Calvinistic theory of regeneration, and 
there can be but two other alternatives — either 
God must renew the heart, independent of all 
co-operation on the part of the subject of this 
change — and this is the old doctrine of uncon- 
ditional Divine efficiency — or the first acceptable 
act of the will must be regeneration ; and this 
is the new doctrine of self -conversion. Let the 
reader, let any one reflect closely on this subject, 
and I cannot doubt but he will say with me, 
There is no third alternative. The nature of 
the case will admit of none. The former the- 
ory may not contradict many of those scriptures 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 277 

that speak of Divine efficiency in the work of 
grace upon the heart, but it is utterly incompati- 
ble with those that urge the sinner to duty. — 
The latter theory corresponds well with the 
urgent injunctions to duty, so abundant in the 
Scriptures, but is wholly irreconcilable with 
those that speak of Divine efficiency. The true 
theory must answer to both ; and must also cor- 
respond with all the other parts of the Christian 
system. Is there such a theory ? Every honest 
inquirer after truth will embrace it doubtless, if 
it can be presented — for truth, wherever, and 
whenever, and by whomsoever discovered, is 
infinitely to be preferred to error, however long 
and fondly it may have been cherished. Such 
a theory I will now try to present — and although 
I may fail in making it very explicit, and in 
bringing forward all its defences, yet if the 
general outlines can be seen and be defended, it 
will, I trust, commend itself to the favourable 
notice of the reader. 

Scripture Doctrine of Regeneration, — I ap- 
proach this subject by laying down the two 
following fundamental principles : — 

1. The work of regeneration is performed 
by the direct and efficient operations of the 
Holy Spirit upon the heart. 

2. The Holy Spirit exerts this regenerating 
power only on conditions, to be first complied 
with by the subject of the change. 

The first principle I deem it unnecessary to 
defend farther than it has been defended in the 
foregoing remarks, It is not objected to by any 



278 



CALYIXISTTC CONTROVERSY. 



orthodox Christians that I know of, only so far 
as the new views of self-conversion, and of con- 
version by moral suasion, may be thought an 
exception. And this we have reason to hope 
will be an exception of limited extent and short 
duration. The sentiment conflicts so directly 
with such a numerous class of scriptures, and 
with the most approved principles of mental 
philosophy ; and has, at the same time, such a 
direct tendency to annihilate all the essential 
features of regeneration, it cannot long find 
encouragement in a spiritual Church. It may 
however make many converts for a time, for 
men are fond of taking the work of salvation 
into their own hands ; but if it should, between 
such converts and the true Church there will 
ultimately be a separation as wide as that which 
now separates orthodoxy and Socinianism. 

The other fundamental principle seems to 
follow, almost of necessity, from the scriptures 
that so abundantly point out the sinner's duty 
and agency, in connection with his conversion. 
The principle, however, is strenuously opposed 
by all classes of Calvinists. The opposite of 
this is in fact the essential characteristic of Cal- 
vinism, if any one notion can be so called ; for 
however much the Calvinistic system may be 
modified, in other respects, this is clung to as 
the elementary germ which constitutes the iden- 
tity of the system. Even the New Divinity, 
which makes so much of human agency, does 
not allow it a conditional action — it allows of 
no intermediate volition between the mental 



CALVINISTIC CONTKOVEKSY. 279 

states of worldly love and Divine love, as the 
occasion on which the transfer is made, or the 
conditional hinge on which the important revo- 
lution is accomplished. On the contrary, it 
considers the volition itself as the transfer — the 
volition constitutes the entire change. Thus 
warily does Calvinism, in all its changes, avoid 
conditional regeneration. Hence if I were 
called upon to give a general definition of Cal- 
vinism, that should include all the species that 
claim the name, I would say, Calvinists are those 
who believe in unconditional regeneration. For 
the moment this point is given up by any one, 
all parties agree that he is not a Calvinist. 

But why is conditional regeneration so offen- 
sive 1 Is it because the Scriptures directly 
oppose it 1 This is hardly pretended. It is 
supposed, however, by the Calvinists, that to 
acknowledge this doctrine would require the 
renunciation of certain other doctrines which 
are taught in the Scriptures. This lays the 
foundation for the objections that have been 
made against this doctrine. It is objected that 
a depraved simier cannot perform an acceptable 
condition until he is regenerated — that God can- 
not consistently accept of any act short of tliat 
which constitutes regeneration — that the idea of 
a conditional regeneration implies salvation by 
works f in part at least, and not wholly by 
grace. 

I have mentioned these objections in this 
connection, not so much to attempt, at this 
moment, a direct refutation of them, as to ad. 



280 



CALvirsisnc contkovekst. 



vert to what I conceive to be the ground of the 
difficulty in the minds of those making the ob- 
jections. It appears to me that the difference 
between us results principally from a difference 
of our views in respect to the constitution and 
the constitutional action of the mind itself. The 
philosophical part of our theology will be modi- 
fied very much by our views of the philosophy 
of mind. Let it be granted then : — 

1. That the mind is possessed of a moral 
susceptibility, generally called conscience, which 
lays the foundation of the notions of right and 
wrong, and by which we feel the emotions of 
approval or disapproval for our past conduct, 
and the feelings of obligation with respect to 
the present and the future ; and that even in an 
unregenerate state this susceptibility often ope- 
rates in accordance with its original design, and 
therefore agreeably with the Divine will. 

2. That the understanding or intellect, which 
is a general division of the mind, containing in 
itself several distinct susceptibilities or powers,, 
may, in an unregenerate state of the mind, be 
so enlightened and informed on the subjects of 
Divine truth as to perceive the right and the 
wrong ; and as to perceive also, to some extent 
at least, the way of salvation pointed out in the 
Gospel. 

3. That the affections and propensities 
(sometimes called the heart) are the principal 
seat of depravity — and these are often arrayed 
in direct hostility to the convictions of the judg- 
ment and the feelings of moral obligation* 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 281 

4. That the will, or that mental power by 
which we put forth volitions, and make deci- 
sions, while it is more or less, directly or 
indirectly, influenced by the judgment, the 
conscience, and the affections, is in fact designed 
to give direction and unity to the whole mental 
action ; and it always accomplishes this, where 
there is a proper harmony in the mental powers. 
But by sin this harmony has been disturbed, and 
the unholy affections have gained an undue 
ascendancy, so that, in the unregenerate, in 
all questions of preference between God and 
the world, in spite of the judgment, of con- 
science, and of the will, the world is loved and 
God is hated. 

5. That in those cases where we cannot con- 
trol our affections by a direct volition, we may, 
nevertheless, under the promptings of conscience, 
and in the light of the judgment, resolve against 
sin — but these resolutions, however firmly and 
repeatedly made, will be carried away and 
overruled by the strength of the carnal mind. 
This shows us our own weakness, drives us to 
self-despair, until, under the enlightening influ- 
ences of grace, and the drawings of the Spirit, 
the soul is led to prayer and to an abdication of 
itself into the hands of Divine mercy, through 

I Christ ; and then, and on these conditions, the 
Holy Spirit changes the character and current 
of the unholy affections — and this is regene- 
ration. 

In laying down the preceding postulates I 
;i have endeavoured to express myself with as 



282 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

much brevity, and with as little metaphysical 
technicality as possible ; for the reason that they 
are designed to be understood by all. Bating 
the deficiencies that may on this account be no- 
ticed by the philosophical reader, I think it may 
be assumed that these, so far as the powers 
and operations of the mind are concerned, em- 
brace the basis and general outlines of what we 
call conditional regeneration. I am not aware 
that they are in opposition to an one principle 
of Scripture tneology, or mental philosophy. 
And if this process is found consonant with 
reason and Scripture, in its general features, it 
will be easy to show that its relative bearings 
are such as most happily harmonize all the 
doctrinal phenomena of the Gospel system. 

We plant ourselves then upon these general 
positions, and as ability will permit, or truth 
may seem to justify, shall endeavour to de- 
fend them against such objections as may be 
anticipated, or are known to have been made 
against any of the principles here assumed. 

1. It may be objected perhaps that this is 
making too broad a distinction between the 
different mental powers, giving to each such a 
distinctive action and operation as to infringe 
upon the doctrine of the mind's unity and sim- 
plicity. It is believed, however, the more this 
point is reflected upon by an attentive observance 
of our own minds, or the minds of others, the 
more satisfied shall we be that the principles 
here assumed are correct. That there are 
these distinct properties of mind no one doubts, 



CALVI^ISTIC CONTROVERSY. 283 

It is in accordance with universal language, to 
speak of the intellect, of the conscience, of the 
will, and of the affections, as distinct properties 
of the mind. The properties of mind are as 
clearly marked by our consciousness, as the 
properties of matter by our senses. And 
although, in consequence of the invisibility of 
mind, there is doubtless a more perfect unity in 
each individual mental property, than in each 
distinct quality of matter, still each of the men- 
tal qualities has its appropriate and distinctive 
character. Calvinists themselves acknowledge 
this. They allow we have a moral sense which 
tests good or evil, even in an unregenerate state ; 
they allow the intellect may perceive and ap- 
prove of truth, even when the heart rejects it ; 
they allow that to perceive and to judge, to feel 
moral obligation and to will, are distinct opera- 
tions of the mind ; and that our perceptions and 
our conscience may be right, when our affections 
are wrong. So far then we are agreed, and 
so far they make distinctions in the mind, as 
wide as any that have been claimed in the prin- 
j ciples above laid down. Theologians, I grant, 
I have, in many instances, confounded in their 
I reasonings the will and the affections. And 
this has also sometimes beeo done by writers 
on the philosophy of the mind. But it is most 
j evident, I think, they have done this without 
j good reason. Mr. Locke says, " I find the will 
j often confounded with several of the affections, 
especially desire, and one put for the other." 
This he thinks is an error, of which " any one 



284 CALYIMSTIC CONTROVERSY. 

who turns his thoughts inward upon what passes 
in his own mind" will be convinced. Rev. 
Professor Upham, of Bowdoin College, Maine, 
himself a Calvinist, as is generally supposed, in 
a late excellent treatise on the will, asserts, and 
clearly proves, I think, that " the state of the 
mind, which we term volition, is entirely distinct 
from that which we term desire" Nay, he 
proves that desires and volitions are often in 
direct opposition. Hence as love implies desire, 
our volitions may often conflict with our love. 
And this is precisely the state the awakened 
sinner is in when he " would do good, but evil 
is present with him." 

2. It may be said, and has sometimes been 
said, that this view of the subject involves a 
contradiction ; that it is the same as to say, the 
man wills against his preference, or in other 
words, he wills what he does not choose. I 
cannot answer this objection better than by an 
argument in Professor Upham's work, already 
alluded to, in which he says, of a similar 
objection on this very subject, " It will be found 
on examination to resolve itself into a verbal 
fallacy, and naturally vanishes as soon as that 
fallacy is detected." " It is undoubtedly true 
that the common usage of language authorizes 
us to apply the terms choice and choosing 
indiscriminately to either the desire or volition ; 
but it does not follow, and is not true, that we 
apply them to these different parts of our nature 
in precisely the same sense." " When the word 
choice implies desire at all, it has reference to 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 285 

a number of desirable objects brougbt before the 
mind at once, and implies and expresses the 
ascendant or predominant desire." "At other 
times we use the terms choice and choosing in 
application to the will — when it is applied to 
that power, it expresses the mere act of the 
will, and nothing more, with the exception, as 
in the other case, that more than one object of 
volition was present, in view of the mind, before 
the putting forth of the voluntary act. It is in 
fact the circumstance that two or more objects 
are present, which suggests the use of the word 
choice or choosing, in either case." " But the 
acts are entirely different in their nature, 
although under certain circumstances the same 
name is applied to them." Hence he adds, 
" The contradiction is not a real, but merely a 
verbal cue. If we ever choose against choosing, 
it will be found merely that choice which is 
volition, placed against that choice which is 
desire." And this is nothing more than to say 
that volitions and desires may conflict with each 
other, which we know to be the fact in numerous 
instances. 

If in reply to the foregoing, and in farther 
defence of the objection, it should be urged, that 
there could be not only no motive for the volition 
in this case, but that it would in fact be put 
forth against all motive, since the feelings of 
the heart would be of a directly opposite cha- 
racter, I reply, that it is not true that there 
would be no motive for the action of the will, 
in opposition to the sinful affections. It is seen 



286 CALVirsISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

already that the judgment in the awakened 
sinner is against continuing in sin, and the 
rebukes of the conscience for the past, and its 
admonitions for the future, are powerful motives 
in opposition to the unholy affections. The 
feelings of compunction and of moral obligation 
gain great accessions of strength, moreover, 
from the terrors of the Divine law, which alarm 
the fears, and from the promises of the Gospel, 
which encourage the hopes of the awakened 
sinner. And it is especially and emphatically 
true that under the existing influence of these 
fears and hopes, the voice of conscience is 
most effectual in prompting the sinner to "flee 
from the wrath to come," and " lay hold on the 
hope set before him.'' Can it be said then that 
there is no motive for a volition, or a mental 
effort that shall conflict with the unsanctifled 
affections ? 

3. Again it is said, for every inch of this 
ground is disputed, that the action of the mind 
under such motives is purely selfish, and cannot 
therefore perform conditions acceptable to God. 
To this it may be replied, that to be influenced 
by motives of self preservation and personal 
salvation is not criminal ; nay, it is commen- 
dable. In proof of this but one argument is 
necessary. God moves upon our fears and 
hopes, for the express purpose of inducing us to 
forsake sin, and serve him ; and he applies these 
motives to man in his unregenerate state. This 
is so obvious a fact, it is presumed none will 
deny it. But is it wrong for us to be prompted 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVEESY. 287 

to action by those considerations which God 
himself urges upon us ? If he attempts to 
excite our fears and hopes to prompt us to a 
course of self preservation, can it be wrong for 
us to be influenced by this means, and in this 
direction ? I should hardly know how to hold 
an argument with a man that should assert this 
— and yet this sentiment is implied in the objec- 
tion now under examination. Beside, these 
acts conditional to regeneration are not wholly, 
perhaps not chiefly, from motives of personal 
interest. Our moral feelings have a great part 
in this work. And it is principally by arousing 
an accusing conscience that fear and hope aid 
in the performance of the conditions of regene- 
ration. But whatever proportion there may be 
of the ingredients of personal fear and hope in 
the feelings that enter into this conditional action 
of the mind, it is certain that the fear of the 
consequences of sin, and the hope to escape 
them, are not themselves criminal, much less 
then are they capable of rendering a complex 
state of the mind, of which they are but a part, 
unacceptable to God. Indeed this objection to 
a mental act, merely because it is prompted by 
self love, has always been to me a matter of 
wonder. Selfishness is a term which we gen- 
erally use in a bad sense, and we mean by it 
that form of self love that leads us to seek our 
own gratification at the expense and the injury 
of others, or in opposition to the will of God. 
But that self love which leads us to seek our 
own highest interests, and especially our eternal 



288 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY* 

interests, without injury to others, and in ac- 
cordance with the Divine will, is never thought 
criminal, I believe, except where one has a 
particular system to support by such a notion. 
But that system is itself of a doubtful character 
which requires such an argument to sustain it. 

4* Another objection which has been made to 
one of the principles above laid down is, that 
" it is the province of the will to control the 
affections, and not the affections the will ; and 
that the will always possesses the power to do this, 
even in an unregenerate state." If so, then 
man has power, at any time, by an act of the 
will, to love God. Let him try — let that unholy 
sinner try. Can he succeed? You say per- 
haps, for so the Calvinists have said, " He can 
if he will ;" that is, he can will to love God if 
he does will to love God! This is no great 
discovery surely, and it is certainly no proper 
answer to the question. I ask it again, Can he, 
by a direct act of the will, love God ? Do you 
say, by varying the form of the answer, " He 
can if he chooses?" If you mean by choice 
the act of the will, this is the same answer over 
again, the folly of which is so apparent. But 
if you mean by choice the desires of his heart, 
then your answer amounts to this : If the desires 
of the heart are in favour of loving God, he 
can, by an act of the will, love him. But if 
the desires of the heart are in favour of loving 
God, the love is already begotten, and there is 
no need of the act of the will to produce it. 
In that case your proposition would be, the 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 289 



sinner can love God by an act of the will, if 
Ive loves him ! the absurdity of which is too 
evident to require comment. It is thus that 
the coils of error run into each other in endless 
circles. 

But, perhaps, to help the argument, if possi* 
ble, it may be urged that the will can decide in 
favour of a closer examination, and by voluntary 
attention may get such strong perceptions of 
truth as will give it the voluntary power over the 
heart. To this I would reply, in the first place, 
this is giving up the argument, it is acknowledg- 
ing that certain preparatory acts of the will are 
necessary before the mind can love God — but 
this is conditional regeneration. And it may be 
farther maintained, in opposition to this senti- 
ment that the mere perception of truth, even 
when united with conscience, and personal 
fear and hope, is not sufficient to give the will 
power over the unrenewed affections. In proof 
of this, Scripture might be adduced; but re- 
serving the Scripture argument for the present, 
we may quote good Calvinistic authority in 
proof that the will may be* enthralled by the 
affections. Professor Upham says, " Whenever 
there is a want of harmony in the mind, there is 
always a greater or less degree of enthralment." 
And then he proceeds to show how the mind 
may be enslaved by the propensities, appetites, 
affections, and passions. He illustrates, for 
example, the progress of this enthralment in 
the case of an appetite for strong drink ; which, 
" like a strong man armed, violently seizes the 
19 



290 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

will, binds it hand and foot, and hurls it into the 
dust." Again he says, " There are not un fre- 
quently cases where the propensities and 
passions have become so intense, after years of 
repetition, as to control, or in other words, 
enthral the voluntary power almost entirely. 5 ' 
(Treatise on the Will.) Dr. Griffin, also an 
able Calvinistic writer, says, in decided terms, 
" The judgment of the intellect and the decisions 
of the will are both controlled by the heart." 

The idea of the enthralment of the will, 
however, may be objected to on another ground, 
viz. that if admitted it would destroy accounta- 
bility, since none are accountable for what they 
cannot avoid. But I have not said they cannot 
avoid it ; neither have I said we are not volun- 
tary either in keeping or discarding the unholy 
heart. I assert directly the contrary. Every 
probationer decides whether he will be holy or 
happy. But his decisions to be holy are 
effectual only when he seeks that from God 
which he cannot do for himself. Then, and 
then only, will God give him the victory over 
the old man, with the deceitful lusts of the heart. 
But this is conditional regeneration. 

Having said thus much in defence of the 
philosophy of the principles laid down, the way 
is prepared to show that they accord with 
Scripture, and to defend them with the doc- 
trine which we build upon them from the 
supposed Scripture objections which have been 
urged against them. But this will furnish 
matter for another number. 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



291 



NUMBER XV. 

REGENERATION, CONTINUED. 

In proposing and vindicating, in the preceding 
number, those views of the philosophy of mind 
which are supposed to throw light upon the 
process of regeneration, it was not intended to 
be intimated that a knowledge of this theory is 
necessary in order to experience the new birth. 
In the practical purposes of life men do not 
ordinarily stop to analyze their mental states 
before they judge, feel, and act. They have 
the practical use of their mental faculties, and 
that suffices. In this way the most ignorant and 
the most unphilosophical may be saved. Why, 
then, it may be asked, is it necessary to enter 
into this analysis at all ? To this it may be 
replied, that whenever we can trace the adap- 
tation of the provisions of grace and the reason 
of the Divine requirements to the known facts 
and laws of the human mind, it will strengthen 
our confidence in the economy of grace, increase 
our admiration of the wisdom and goodness of 
God, and sharpen our weapons of defence 
against the cavils and assaults of an opposing 
skepticism. But especially is this philosophical 
examination necessary whenever a superficial 
or an erroneous philosophy would force upon us 
an erroneous theology. The metaphysical mist 
with which some theories have veiled the doc- 
trine of regeneration, and the delusive and 
distorted views that have resulted from this 



292 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



obscuration, may be removed and corrected by 
the radiance of a pure philosophy. But as 
human philosophy is, at best, more likely to err 
on these subjects than revelation, the former 
should always be corrected or confirmed by 
the latter. How is it in the case under exami- 
nation? How do the assumed opinions corres- 
pond with revelation? 

Let us glance again at our positions. The 
principal points assumed are — that there is 
often a conflict between the feelings of moral 
obligation on the one hand, enlightened as they 
are by reason and by grace, sanctioned as they 
are by fear and hope, and the unholy affections 
on the other ; that under the promptings of the 
moral feelings the will frequently puts forth its 
strength to resist and subdue the unholy affec- 
tions, but in every such case the effort fails 
when unaided by the sanctifying grace of God — 
and that victory is finally gained by a conditional 
act of the will, through which, or on occasion 
of which, God subdues the passions and changes 
the heart. These views have been vindicated, 
as being in accordance with the philosophy of 
mind. The question now is, Are they sustained 
by Scripture ? I answer, Yes, most clearly. 

If the Apostle Paul had attempted, by a set 
argument, to illustrate and affirm these views, 
he could not have done it better or more 
explicitly than he has done in the latter part of 
the 7th, and the first part of the 8th chapters 
of the Epistle to the Romans. " I see," says 
the apostle, " another law in my members, 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



293 



warring against the law of my mind, and 
bringing me into captivity to the law of sin, 
which is in my members." The law of sin 
in his members was undoubtedly the carnal mind, 
the unholy affections. These warred against 
the law of his mind, his enlightened judgment, 
his feelings of moral obligation ; and in this 
warfare the former were victorious, and carried 
captive the will ; so that " the good that he 
would, he did not, and the evil that he would not, 
that he did." " To will was present with him," 
but " how to perform, he knew not." See the 
entire passage, for it beautifully illustrates our 
whole theory. Here is the conflict, the strug- 
gle between conscience and sin ; here is pointed 
out the seat of sin, viz. the " flesh" or carnal 
mind, which is but another name for the unsanc- 
tified affections and appetites ; here is the will 
struggling to turn the contest on the side of duty, 
but struggling in vain ; every effort results in 
defeat — it is taken captive, and overcome. — 
Despair finally settles down upon the mind, as 
far as personal strength is concerned, and the 
anxious soul looks abroad for help, and cries 
out, " Who shall deliver me from the body of 
this death !" Then it is that deliverance 

I comes ! Jesus Christ, the Saviour of sinners, 

| sets him free ! 

Professor Stuart, of Andover, himself a Cal- 
vinist, has shown most conclusively, what 

| Arminians have long contended for, that this 
portion of revelation refers specifically to the 
work of regeneration. But whether this be 

I 
1 



294 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

granted by every Calvinist or not, no man can 
deny but that the grand philosophical principles 
heretofore contended for, are here fully illustrated 
— the same division of the mind — the same 
conflict — the same thraldom of the will, and the 
same deliverance, through faith in Jesus Christ 
our Lord. 

The same principles, in part at least, are 
recognized in Gal. v, 17, " For the flesh lusteth 
against the Spirit, and the Spirit agakist the 
flesh ; and these are contrary the one to the 
other, so that ye cannot do the things that ye 
would ." In short, all those passages whero the 
difficulty of subduing the carnal mind, of 
keeping the body under, of crucifying the old 
man, all those passages that speak of a warfare, 
an internal conflict, and the like, recognize the 
principles here contended for. These principles, 
so frequently adverted to in the Scriptures, are 
proved to be in exact conformity with experi- 
ence. Who that has passed through this change, 
but remembers this conflict, this war in the 
members ? Who but recollects how his best 
resolutions were broken as often as made ; and 
how, after various and vigorous efforts, his heart 
seemed to himself to grow worse and worse ? 
He found secret treason lurking in his bosom 
even when he was trying to repent of his past 
disloyalty. 

" The more he strove against its power, 
He felt the guilt and sin the more." 

Every additional effort sunk him apparently but 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 295 

the lower in " the horrible pit and miry clay," 
until " the Lord heard his cry" until " the Lord 
brought him up, and set his feet upon a rock, 
and established his goings, and put a new song 
in his mouth." 

That the Scriptures speak of a conditional 
action of the mind, preparatory to the work of 
regeneration, appears from express passages, 
as well as from the general tenor of that 
numerous class of scriptures which enjoin duty 
upon the sinner, and predicate justification and 
salvation upon those duties. John i, 12, has 
already been quoted and commented upon, in 
which the new birth is suspended upon receiving 
Christ, or believing on his name. The many 
cases of healing the body, by Christ, are evi- 
dent illustrations of the healing of the soul. 
In fact, we have good reasons for supposing that, 
in most of these cases at least, the soul and 
body were healed at the same time ; and this 
was always on the condition of asking and 
believing. John iii, 14, 15, "As Moses lifted 
up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must 
the Son of man be lifted up ; that whosoever 
believeth in him should not perish, but have 
everlasting life." Here our Saviour shows the 
analogy between the cure of the Israelites by 
looking at the brazen serpent, and of sinners by 
looking to Christ. But how were the Israelites 
healed ? By the conditional act of looking at 
the brazen serpent. So looking at Christ is the 
condition of healing the soul. Take aw T ay this 
condition and the whole analogy is destroyed. 



296 CALvrcisTic controversy. 

Let this condition be understood, and the text 
will accord with others, equally expressive of 
conditions. "Look unto me and be ye saved, 
all the ends of the earth." " Seek first the 
kingdom of God and his righteousness." "Seek 
the Lord while he may be found." God hath 
determined that all nations "should seek the 
Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and 
find him, though he be not far from everv one 
of us." Will any one pretend to say that this 
looking and seeking implies regeneration ? 
This is mere assumption ; where is the proof ? 
who would ever infer this idea from the Scrip 
tures themselves ? What ! is the sinner regen- 
erated before the malady of his soul, the 
poisonous bite of sin, is healed ? Has he found 
the Lord before he has sought him ? And must 
he seek after he has found him? The kingdom 
of God is religion in the soul — it is " righte- 
ousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost and 
when we are regenerated, we have it in pos- 
session, and have therefore no need to seek it. 
But we are commanded to seek the kingdom of 
God ; this, therefore, must be a work preparatory 
to, and conditional of regeneration. " Come 
unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, 
and I will give you rest." " Take my yoke 
upon you," &c. To be restless, and not to 
have on the yoke of Christ, is to be unregenerate ; 
but such are to come and take the yoke, and 
then, and on that condition, they will find rest 
to their souls. " The Spirit and the bride say, 
Come, &c, and whosoever will, let him come and 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 297 

take of the water of life freely." To take of 
the water of life is to be regenerate ; but to this 
end we must come, and must first will in order 
to come. "Behold, I stand at the door and 
knock ; if any man hear my voice and open the 
door, I will come in and sup with him, and he 
with me." Before Christ is in the soul, there 
is no regeneration ; but before he will come in, 
he knocks, and the sinner must first hear, and 
then open the door, and on this condition Christ 
comes in and imparts his grace. 

But it is useless to proceed farther in quoting 
particular texts. They might be extended 
indefinitely, with a force and pertinency that 
cannot be evaded : all going to establish the 
fact that the work of grace on the heart is con- 
ditional. 

Will any one pretend to deny, that the unre- 
generate sinner is called upon to seek, ask, 
repent, believe, &c? And what do such scrip- 
tures mean? The acts of the mind here 
enjoined must constitute regeneration, or they 
must follow regeneration as an effect of that 
work, or they must precede it as a necessary 
and required condition. To say that these acts 
are the very definition of regeneration itself — 
are only synonymous terms to express this re- 
newal of the heart, is to make regeneration 
consist in exercises merely — is in fact to make it 
the sinner's appropriate and exclusive work ; 
unless it can be shown that this commanding 
the sinner to ask, &c, is nothing more nor less 
than a promise that God will ask, seek, repent, 



298 calvixistic controversy. 

and believe for him ! But (his will hardly be 
pretended; and the idea that these acts do 
themselves constitute the new birth, has already 
been seen to be defective and indefensible. 

To suppose that these acts follow regenera- 
tion, as an effect or fruit of the change itself, 
is to deny them that position and relation in 
which they are actually placed by the word of 
God. It makes one seek, after he has found ; 
ask, after he has received ; repent and believe, 
after he is possessed of that salvation, to obtain 
which these duties are enjoined. The phrase- 
ology to suit this theory, should evidently be of 
an entirely different character. When the sin- 
ner asks what he shall do to be saved, the 
answer should be — " Nothing until God renews 
the heart ; and then as a fruit of this you will 
of course seek, ask, believe" &c. If, indeed, the 
sinner is to do nothing until God renews him, 
why is it necessary that he should first be 
awakened ? Why is the command addressed 
to him at all? Why does not the Holy Spirit 
immediately renew the heart, while the trans- 
gressor is stupid in his wickedness, instead of 
calling after him to awake, flee, and escape for 
his life ? Do you say you can give no other 
reason than that it pleases God to take this 
course with the sinner, and to call up his atten- 
tion to the subject before he renews him ? I 
answer, then it pleases God that there should be 
certain preparatory acts of the mind in order 
to regeneration : and this is in fact admitting 
the principle for which we contend, and this 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 299 

more especially if it be acknowledged, as it 
evidently must be, that these preparatory mental 
states or acts are, to any extent, voluntary. 
Thus, not only is the absurdity of making these 
acts the result of regeneration most apparent ; 
but in tracing out the consistent meaning and 
practical bearing of those scriptures that are 
addressed to the unconverted, we find them 
establishing the third alternative, that these acts 
of the mind are preparatory to regeneration, 
and are the prescribed conditions on w 7 hich 
God will accomplish the work. Thus the 
Scripture argument is found to confirm the 
philosophical view of the subject, and both are 
strengthened by Christian experience. The 
doctrine of conditional regeneration, therefore, 
is confirmed by a threefold argument, no part 
of which, it is believed, can be easily overthrown. 
Against it, however, there are several strong 
objections urged, which have already been 
mentioned, and which we are now prepared to 
hear and examine. 

1. It has been objected, that to admit human 
agency and co-operation in this change, is to 
deny salvation by grace. But how does this 
appear ? Suppose the very conditions are by a 
gracious appointment — suppose the operations 
of a gracious system are in this way better 
adapted to a moral government — suppose this 
conditional action of the mind to be itself the 
result of a gracious influence, enlightening the 
u«derstanding, and quickening and arousing the 
moral sense — finally, suppose these conditions 



30 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

not to be efficient, much less meritorious causes, 
by which the mind either changes itself, or 
renders itself more morally deserving of the 
Divine favour — I say suppose all this, and then 
show if you can, how such conditions can de- 
tract at all from the grace of this salvation. 

2. It has been objected, that " since man never 
is what he ought to be until he is renewed and 
made holy, therefore any act short of that which 
either constitutes or implies regeneration cannot 
be acceptable to God — God cannot consistently 
approve of any step that falls short of man's duty. 
It is his duty to be holy, and therefore any thing 
short of this is sin, and consequently cannot be 
accepted as a condition." We should be care- 
ful to discriminate between things closely related, 
and yet actually distinct from each other. It is 
one thing to be pleased with the character of 
the mind as a whole, in view of its relations to 
the Divine law and its necessary qualifications 
for heaven, and another thing to be pleased with 
a particular mental state, or conditional volition, 
in reference to its adaptation to a proposed end, 
or a specific object. For instance : the Calvinists 
think that an awakened and an anxiously inquir- 
ing sinner is in a more suitable state of mind to 
receive the blessing of regeneration, than one per- 
fectly stupid and thoughtless. If they do not, 
why do they try to bring sinners to thoughtful- 
ness ? Why do they try to awaken them to a 
sense of their danger, and make them tremble 
under the view of the Divine displeasure ? @r 
why do they call their attention to Gospel provi- 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 301 

sions and a crucified Saviour 1 Is not this a pre- 
paratory process ? And have they the Divine war- 
rant for such a course 1 Is this the method which 
the Divine Being takes to save his rebellious sub- 
jects? Then, doubtless, this method is well pleas- 
iug to him : and in reference to this specific end 
he has in view, he is pleased with each succes- 
sive step in the process. He is pleased when 
the sinner pays attention to the word ; he is 
pleased when he is awakened, and when he be- 
gins to tremble and inquire, " What shall I do to 
be saved 1" This is just as he would have it, 
and just as he designed ; although the entire cha- 
racter of the sinner is not acceptable to him un- 
til he is made holy. The very principle, then, 
objected to by the Calvinists is recognized by 
their own theory and practice. Now if we say 
God is pleased to accept of the sinner's prayer, 
and faith, and sorrow for sin, as a condition of 
what he will do for him, what propriety is there 
in replying, God cannot accept of any thing 
short of a holy heart ? We know he cannot 
approve of a heart until it is holy ; but he can 
approve of certain feelings and volitions as suited, 
according to the Divine appointment, to be the 
condition on which he will make the heart holy. 
Do you ask on what ground he accepts of this ? I 
answer, on the ground of the merits of Christ ; the 
ground on which the whole process rests. God 
does not accept of the prayer, repentance, and 
faith of the regenerate, because they are regene- 
rate, and by reason of their holiness ; but their ac- 
ceptance is wholly and continually through Christ. 



302 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



Through the same medium and merits the prayer 
of the inquiring sinner is heard and answered. 

If your servant had left you unjustly, and de- 
serted the service he was obligated to perform, 
and you should finally tell him, if he would re- 
turn and resume his duties you would forgive the 
past, and accept of him for the future, would it 
be inconsistent to say, you were pleased when 
he began to listen to the proposal, and pleased 
when he took the first and every succeeding step, 
as being suitable and necessary to the end pro- 
posed, although, in view of his duty and your 
claim, you would not be pleased with him, as 
your acceptable servant, until he was actually 
and faithfully employed in your service ? 

Let it not be inferred from the above that 
I advocate a gradual conversion. I do not. I 
believe when God renews the heart he does it 
at once ; but the preparatory steps are neverthe- 
less indispensable to the accomplishment of this 
work. And God is well pleased with the first 
step of attention on the part of the sinner, and 
with every succeeding step of prayer, anxious 
inquiry, feeling of moral obligation, purpose to 
forsake sin, looking after and attempting to be- 
lieve in Christ, not because these are all that he 
requires, but because they are the necessary 
preparatives for what is to follow. 

3. The foregoing remarks will prepare the 
way to meet a similar objection to the last, and 
one to some extent the same in substance. It 
is this : " Are these conditional acts of the mind 
holy or unholy exercises ? If holy, then the work of 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 308 

regeneration is accomplished already, and there- 
fore these cannot be the conditions of that change. 
If unholy, then they can be no other than offensive 
to a holy God, and therefore cannot be conditions 
well pleasing to him." In addition to what has 
been already said, having a bearing upon this 
question, it may be stated that the terms holy and 
unholy may be equivocal, as used in this connec- 
tion ; and thus the supposed dilemma would be 
more in words than in fact, more in appearance 
than in reality. This dilemma is urged in the 
argument under the idea that there can be 
but the two kinds of exercises, holy and unholy. 
And this may be true enough, only let us under- 
stand what is meant. If by holy exercises are 
meant those in which the entire feeling is on the 
side of God, I readily answer, JVb, the mind before 
regeneration has no such exercises. If by holi- 
ness is meant, that the judgment and conscience 
are on the side of truth, I answer, Yes, this is 
the state of the mind when it is truly awakened 
by the Holy Spirit and by Divine truth. It is 
entirely immaterial to me, therefore, whether the 
objector call the exercise holy or unholy, provi- 
ded he draw no special inferences from the use 
of a general term that the positions here assumed 
do not authorize. Sure I am that the objector 
cannot say there is nothing in the exercises of the 
unregenerate, awakened sinner, such as God 
would have for the end proposed, until he is 
prepared to say that a fear of the consequences 
of sin, an enlightened judgment, the remorse of 
conscience for the past, the feelings of obligation 



304 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

for the future, and the hope of victory over sin 
through Christ, all combining to induce the sinner 
to flee for refuge, and lay hold upon the hope set 
before him, are all wrong, and not as God would 
have them ? But when a man is prepared to say 
this, it is difficult to see how he could be reason- 
ed with farther, for he would seem to have given 
up reason and Scripture. And yet who does not 
know that these are the exercises of the soul 
awakened to a sense of sin and its consequences, 
even while as yet his unholy affections hang upon 
him like a body of death ? — Yea, who does not 
know that it is this body of death, from which 
he cannot escape, and this abhorrence of sin and 
its consequences, that rein him up, and incline 
him to a surrender of his soul into the hands of 
Christ, from whom, as a consequence, he re. 
ceives power to become a son of God. " But what 
is the motive ?" it is asked, " is not this unholy ?" 
And pray what does this inquiry mean ? If by mo- 
tive is meant the moving cause out of the mind ; 
that cannot be unholy, for it is the Holy Spirit, 
and the holy word of God, that are thus urging 
the sinner to Christ. If by motive is meant the 
judgments and feelings of the mind, that prompt 
to these voluntary efforts to avoid sin and its 
consequences, these are the enlightened under- 
standing and the feelings of obligation, already 
alluded to, which, I repeat, the objector is wel- 
come to call holy or unholy as he pleases ; all I 
claim is, they are what God approves of, and are 
the necessary conditions of his subsequent work 
of renewing the heart. 



CALV1NISTIC CONTROVERSY. 305 

But perhaps it may be asked here, Is not the 
sinner, in the performance of these conditions, 
partly converted ? I answer, This again depends 
entirely upon what you mean by conversion. If 
by conversion you understand the whole of the 
preparatory work of awakening and seeking, as 
well as the change of the heart — then of course 
you would say he is partly converted. If you 
mean by conversion only a change of views and 
a consequent change of purpose, by which the 
sinner determines to seek, that he may rind the 
pearl of great price — the blessing of a new heart 
and of forgiveness, then you would say he is 
wholly converted. But if you mean, by conver- 
sion, the change of heart itself, the washing of 
regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, 
then not only is not the work done, but it is not 
begun. The way of the Lord is prepared and 
the renewal will follow. 

Thus the objections that have been thought so 
formidable against the doctrine of conditional re- 
generation are found, on a closer inspection, to 
be more in appearance than in reality. They 
receive their influence, as objections, rather from 
their indeflniteness and the ambiguity of terms, 
than from any intrinsic force. 

There is, however, one form more in which 
an objection may be urged in a general way 
against the ids as of the new birth here advan- 
ced. And as I wish fearlessly and candidly to 
state and meet, if possible, every difficulty, it will 
be necessary to touch upon this. It may be 
urged that " the only exercises that can be claim* 
20 



306 



CALVIXISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



ed as conditions of regeneration on Bible grounds 
are repentance and faith ; for 6 repentance to- 
ward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ' are 
laid at the foundation of all Gospel requirements. 
Whenever the awakened sinner came to the 
apostles to know what he should do to be saved, 
they always met him with, 6 Believe on the Lord 
Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.' When- 
ever the apostles went out to preach the Gospel, 
they preached £ every where that men should re- 
pent.' 99 " But," continues the objector, " if 
repentance and faith are the only duties or exer- 
cises which can be claimed as conditions, it is 
evident there are no such conditions ; for repent- 
ance and faith, so far from being conditions of 
regeneration, are either the new birth itself, or 
are Christian graces, implying the new birth." 

The premises, in the above objection, will not 
be denied. Repentance and faith are supposed 
to be the Gospel conditions of regeneration. But 
it is denied that these are necessarily regeneration 
itself, or that they imply regeneration in any 
other sense, than as antecedents to it. There 
are, it is acknowledged, a repentance and a faith 
that are Christian graces, and imply the new 
birth. This is the faith that " is" the substance 
of things hoped for." It is that principle of 
spiritual life which the Christian has in his soul 
when he can say, " The life that I \o\v live I live 
by faith in the Son of God." This is that repent- 
ance, also, which keeps the soul continually at 
the foot of the cross, and leads it constantly to 
feel, 



CALVINISTIC CCOTROVEKSY. 307 

" Every moment, Lord, I need 
The merit of thy death." 

But because repentance and faith are the -neces- 
sary characteristics of the Christian, and because 
they are the more perfect as the Christian cha- 
racter ripens, it does not therefore follow that 
there are no repentance and faith conditional to 
the new birth. The very fact that repentance 
and faith were urged by Christ and his apostles, 
as the initiatory step to salvation, proves the oppo- 
site of this. They do not say, Repent and believe 
the Gospel, and this is salvation, but, " Repent 
and believe, and ye shall (on this condition) be 
saved." And surely it is unnecessary to prove 
here that salvation in the New Testament gene- 
rally means a meetness for heaven or holiness, 
Our blessed Saviour was called Jesus, because 
he saved his people from their sins. 

Beside, it may well be argued, that faith and 
repentance are acts of the mind, and cannot 
therefore be considered as the new birth itself, 
unless the mind converts itself, especially since 
they are enjoined duties, and must therefore be 
voluntary acts. It is no where said that God 
repents and believes for us ; but it is expressly 
and repeatedly taught, that God renews us. — 
Repentance and faith, then, are our work, but 
regeneration is his. I know it is said in one 
place, Acts v, 31, that Christ was exalted "to 
give repentance to Israel." But the act itself of 
repentance cannot be said to be given, This 
would be an absurdity. How can any one 
give me a mental act ? Hence Dr. Doddridge, 



308 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

although a Calvinist, very candidly and very 
justly remarks, on this passage, that to give re- 
pentance signifies " to give place , or room for 
repentance," to sustain which interpretation he 
quotes Josephus and others who use the phrase 
in this sense. If then repentance and faith are 
enjoined upon us, as our duties, and if they are 
every where spoken of as prerequisites in the 
work of salvation, and as preparatory steps and 
conditions to the process of holiness, how can it 
be otherwise than that these are antecedent, in 
the order of nature, to regeneration 1 

It may farther be argued, in support of this 
view of faith and repentance, that no sin can be 
forgiven until repented of — repentance therefore 
must precede remission of sins. This I suppose 
Calvinists allow, but they say that, in the order 
of nature, the heart is renewed before sin is for- 
given — and that repentance, therefore, which is 
either the new birth itself, or the immediate 
fruit of it, is a condition of justification, but not 
of regeneration. If this be correct, then the 
soul is made holy before it is forgiven. But St. 
Paul informs us, Romans iv, 5, that God through 
faith " justifieth the ungodly." If then there be any 
antecedence in the order of the two parts of the 
work of grace, we must suppose that justification 
has the precedence, and that regeneration follows, 
and hence repentance and faith precede regen- 
eration. Indeed I cannot see why repentance 
is not as necessary to remove the sin of the heart 
as to forgive the sin of the life. If God will not 
forgive sin without repentance, will he renew the 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 309 

heart without it ? Has he any where promised 
this ? If not, but if, on the contrary, he every 
where seems to have suspended the working out 
of our salvation in us, upon our repentance, then 
may we safely conclude — nay, then we must 
necessarily believe that we repent in order to 
be renewed. The same may be said of faith. 
Faith in fact seems to be the exclusive channel 
through which every gracious effect is produced 
upon the mind. The sinner cannot be awakened 
without faith, for it precedes every judgment in 
favour of truth, and every motion of moral feel- 
ing, and of course every favourable concurrence 
of the will. The sinner never could throw him- 
self upon the Divine mercy, never would em- 
brace Christ as his Saviour, until he believed. 
Hence the Scriptures lay such great stress upon 
faith, and make it the grand, and indeed the only 
immediate condition of the work of grace upon 
the heart. Repentance is a condition only re- 
motely, in order to justifying faith ; agreeable to 
the teaching of Christ, " And ye, when ye had 
heard, afterward repented not that ye might be* 
lieve on him." But faith is necessary immedu 
ately, as that mental state directly antecedent 
to the giving up of the soul into the hands of 
Divine mercy. And shall we still be told that 
faith is not the condition of regeneration ? The 
order of the work seems to be — 1. A degree 
of faith in order to repentance. 2. Repentance, 
in order to such an increase of faith as will 
lead the soul to throw itself upon Christ. — 
3. The giving up of the soul to Christ as the 



310 CALVIXISTIC CONTROVERSY* 

only ground of hope. 4. The change of hearf 
by the efficient operation of the Holy Spirit. — 
Now on whichever of these four stages of the 
process, except the first, the objector lays his 
ringer and says, That is not a condition of re- 
generation, for it is regeneration itself, it will be 
seen that that very part is conditional. If, for 
instance, he fix on the second stage, and con- 
tend that that is regeneration, which I call re- 
pentance in order to regenerating faith ; even 
that would be conditional regeneration, for it is 
preceded by faith — and so of all that follow. 
And surely no one will pretend that what I call 
the first stage, the faith which precedes awaken- 
ing and remorse of conscience, and the excit- 
ing alternations of fear and hope in the anxious 
and inquiring sinner, is regeneration. And if 
this first degree of faith is not the change, then 
it is utterly inconsistent to talk of unconditional 
regeneration, for this faith stands at the head 
of all that follows — it is a mental act necessarily 
preparatory to the whole work. And as we 
shall presently see, it is an act that depends 
upon the agency of the will. Hence we are 
brought again to our conclusion, that the change 
called the new birth is effected by the Holy 
Spirit, on the ground of certain conditional acts 
of him who is the subject of the change. 

" But the very nature of repentance and of 
faith, the very definition of the two mental states 
expressed by these terms," it is said, "proves that 
a person, to possess them, must be regenerate ; 
or at any rate, that these states cannot be condi- 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 311 

tions of regeneration, to be performed by the 
sinner." Let us attend for a moment to this ob- 
jection in detail. 

What is repentance ? " It is," say some Cal- 
vinistic writers, " a change of mind. The ori- 
ginal means this, and so it should have been 
rendered ; and if it had been so rendered, it 
would have set this controversy at rest." But 
what if we should grant (what I do not believe) 
that the original word means this, and this only, 
still it would not follow that the change of mind 
called the new birth is meant by this term. A 
change of judgment is a change of mind — a 
change of purpose is a change of mind — any 
change of the general current of feeling, such 
as that from carelessness and stupidity in sin to 
a state of anxiety and earnest inquiry, what 
shall I do to be saved ? is a change of mind. — 
And such a change of mind indispensably pre- 
cedes regeneration. No person ever, from 
being a careless, hardened sinner, becomes an 
anxious and earnest inquirer after salvation, 
without an important change in his judgment, 
moral feeling, and volitions. Hence this defini- 
tion does not at all help the objector, unless he 
can prove that the Scriptures always mean by 
this term that change which they elsewhere call 
the new birth. Indeed, since we have already 
shown that repentance is our work, and the re- 
newing of the heart exclusively God's work, it 
follows incontrovertibly, that the change of mind 
called repentance is not the new birth. 

If repentance meant that change of mind 



312 CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 

called the new birth, then the regenerate would 
be often born again, and that, too, without back- 
sliding ; for those who are growing the fastest in 
grace repent the most constantly and the most 
deeply. 

Again : it is objected, that " faith is not a 
voluntary state of mind, and therefore cannot 
be considered a condition, performed by the sin- 
ner, in order to regeneration." To believe is 
doubtless, in many instances, perfectly involun- 
tary. There are numerous cases in which a 
man is obliged to believe, both against his will 
and against his desires. There are other cases, 
again, in which the will is not only much con- 
cerned in believing, but in which its action is 
indispensable in order to believe. And the faith 
of the Gospel is pre-eminently an instance of this 
kind. " Faith," saith the word, " cometh by 
hearing." But hearing implies attention ; and 
every deliberate act of attention implies an act 
of the will. A man can no more leap, by one 
transition, from a state of entire carelessness into 
the faith that justifies the soul, than he can 
make a world. But he can take the steps that 
lead to this result. To believe to the saving of 
the soul requires consideration, self examination, 
a knowledge of the object of faith, or the truth to 
be believed, earnest looking, and prayerful seek- 
ing. But is there no act of the will in all these ? 
It is said that " the Spirit takes of the things of 
Jesus Christ, and shows them unto us." And it 
is doubtless true, that the soul cannot get such 
a view of Christ as encourages him to throw 



CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY. 313 

himself unreservedly upon the mercy of the Sa- 
viour, until the Spirit makes, to the mind's eye, 
this special exhibition of the " things of Christ." 
But when does he do this? Does he come to 
the sinner when he is careless and inattentive, 
and show him the things of Christ ? No ! it is 
only to the inquiring and self-despairing sinner, 
who is earnestly groaning out the sentiment in 
the bitterness of his heart, " Who shall deliver 
me from the body of this death ?" And is there 
no voluntary action in all this ? 

But it will perhaps be wearisome to the read- 
er to pursue these objections farther. I should 
not have gone so fully into this part of the sub- 
ject, but for the fact, that this sentiment of un- 
conditional regeneration is considered the strong 
hold of Calvinism. This point moreover appears 
to have been but slightly handled by most of the 
anti-Calvinistic writers ; and therefore I have 
felt it the more necessary to attempt an answer 
to all the most important arguments that are ad- 
duced in opposition to our view of this doctrine. 
I am far from thinking I have done the subject 
justice, and may have cause perhaps hereafter 
to acknowledge that some of my minor posi- 
tions are untenable, and that some of my expres- 
sions need modifying or explaining, although I 
have used what care and circumspection my 
time and circumstances would permit in refer- 
ence not only to the doctrine itself, but also 
in reference to the forms of expression. And 
as it respects the leading doctrines here inculca- 
ted, I repose upon them with entire confidence. 



314 



CALVIMSTIC CONTROVERSY. 



However the theory clashes with that of many 
great and good men, it is believed to be the only 
theory that will consistently explain the practice 
and preaching of these very men. It is, in my 
view, the only theory that will satisfactorily and 
consistently explain those great and leading princi- 
ples by which evangelical Christians expect to 
convert the world to Christ. And, if this be true, 
the sooner the Christian Church is established 
on this foundation, the better. We have already 
vseen that a mixture of error in the essential doc- 
trines leads to various mutations from extreme 
to extreme of dangerous heresy. How long be- 
fore the Church shall be rooted and grounded in 
the truth ! May He who said, Let light be ; 
and light was, hasten that glorious day ! 



THE END. 




Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 



